Increasing Trust: Public Forum Debate and Evidence Norms

This article was originally published in the Summer 2013 edition of the Rostrum.

Over the years, I have had many opportunities to lead discussions on the use of evidence in Public Forum Debate and the ethical issues facing the PF community. When opening these talks, I began by questioning students and coaches on their experiences, and one theme was present across both audiences: a lack of trust with regard to the use of evidence in the Public Forum Debate community.

With increasing numbers teaching Public Forum Debate in classrooms around the globe, now is an opportune time to address evidence norms and how we can work together to establish academic standards for this unique format.

With shorter speech times and a focus on citizen judge-oriented delivery, Public Forum debaters have normalized summarizing longer evidence in their own words. However, with one-month (and sometimes one-tournament) topics, fellow students as well as judges aren’t as familiar with evidence and thus summarizations aren’t often questioned. This is especially true with a citizenbased judge pool who are less familiar with debate norms and frown on the opponent calling to read “cards” that were summarized. However, misuse of this norm occurs at local, regional, and even national levels of competition.

My conversations with students and coaches from around the country have left me with a general sense of frustration—a frustration felt by students who watch their peers win with poor evidence practices; students who then blame debate losses on issues of an ethical nature without giving the opposing side an opportunity to defend themselves; coaches who are frustrated with the current practices in the activity but aren’t sure how to address them.

Current norms call for a judge in a round to be the first line of adjudication with regard to evidence concerns. This is the best place for such a concern to be addressed as the adjudicator is the one witnessing the use of said evidence. Overlooked when asking this of the judge is that we rarely train a community member who is new to debate on how to address such a challenge. Thus, students confess that there is a greater hesitation to ask to see a piece of evidence from their opponents or to question the evidence in the round. In some states, it is against the rules for a judge to ask to see a piece of evidence, and students are not required to hand evidence over to their opponents when questioned. In a world without transparency and without empowering our volunteer judges, we leave room for intentional and unintentional abuse of the system.

In addition to the potential misuse of evidence, there is another problem with the general distrust that exists in the community. The speed in which students accuse each other of ethical violations; of making up evidence, when it simply might have been misunderstood by the reader or misheard by the challenger; of academic dishonesty; of cheating. And when a student is accused of an ethical violation of this level, it stings for the student in a way that no physical punch could. When all you have is your word in a debate round, and now your word is cast in a shadow of ethical doubt, you are effectively muted without a fair trial.

One of the common proposals when speaking to students and coaches is to codify more stringent evidence rules. However, while I agree that there are no clearly written rules at this time for evidence that are specific to Public Forum, I also would contend that you can’t legislate everything. We cannot predict every possible infraction or always clearly define the difference between misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. We must make changes through holding our students to a higher standard, regardless of a written set of rules.

The citizen judge is a vital part of Public Forum Debate, and we must recognize this in the greater conversation, but also recognize the limitations this places on the activity. And as long as speech times remain short and delivery is slow, we will continue to see summarizations of evidence occur.

Trust has been, and will continue to be, a necessary component of the debate community in order for us to achieve the goals of educating students and preparing them for success in the future. According to Dr. Patrick Drinan, professor at the University of San Diego in his article “Loyalty, Learning, & Academic Integrity” published in Liberal Education, “Embedded in academic integrity are fundamental values and principles that together reinforce educational mission and academic processes. Academic institutions are compelled to pursue truth. Without honesty and transparency of methodologies, acquisition and transmission of knowledge are impaired. Without trust, there are severe limits in the cooperation needed to accumulate knowledge or verify the achievement of requisite skills and perspectives among students.” 1

However, coaches and debaters can work toward common evidence practices—standards that I believe will reduce the distrust in the community while at the same time strengthen academic skills tied to the activity. These are not all my own ideas, but rather ones proposed by respected members of the debate community, many of which have been utilized by various programs already and which were, in most instances, mandated at the summer programs at which I had an opportunity to teach this summer.

First, we need to treat debate as an academic activity. This seems like a no-brainer, yet one that is necessary when approaching this topic. Just as teachers in other disciplines teach about academic integrity, about citing sources, and what plagiarism is, so should debate teachers—regardless of whether your coaching happens during the class day or after school. We need to hold our debaters to the same ethical standards that fine academic institutions hold their students. Teach and then back up that teaching with firm guidelines for our teams. Students should learn what it means to act ethically, but also how to approach situations when their ethics are questioned, or how they should act should they reach a point when they may need to question the actions of another member of the community.

Professor Drinan addresses the teaching of ethics in his article by proposing that faculty lead discussions about academic integrity. When addressing the question of what academic integrity is, he writes, “According to the Center for Academic Integrity, it focuses on standing up for five values that are fundamental to the academic process, even when it is difficult to do so. The value of academic honesty is primary and a prerequisite to the other four. It is the foundation of academic integrity, not its fullness. I have already alluded to a second, trust. The other three are fairness, respect, and responsibility. Fairness guarantees that students are not disadvantaged by the dishonesty of a few. Respect means acknowledging the worth and work of others and not treating them as objects. Responsibility is defined in terms of accountability, that is, taking action in the face of wrongdoing.” 2

Second, students should approach case and block writing like they would approach writing a research paper for another academic discipline. Footnotes and internal source citations for every piece of evidence referenced, whether quoted directly (and using correct denotations for the beginning and end of quotations) or summarizing a longer piece of evidence. These footnotes should be the full citation, using MLA or other appropriate format. Cases and blocks are works of research, and teaching our students to properly footnote will help them in other disciplines and in college. It also allows for students to easily access their source citations when needed.

Third, students should attach full cards for every piece of evidence read and/or summarized in cases and blocks. When doing research for other disciplines, this method is used to assist students in rewrites and also in discussions with instructors about the material being researched. It forces our students to find the exact part of a study where the author explains the results the debater wants to summarize. Rather than pointing to a 70-page study and saying “it’s in there” and asking the opponent or judge to find it, we are holding our students accountable for the research they are doing. This teaches students to synthesize their research. Cardcutting has been done for years in other disciplines, not just debate, and I don’t believe this requirement changes Public Forum’s unique attributes but rather strengthens the academic skills we are teaching.

Finally, require your debaters to hand a printed copy of their case with attached cards to an opponent if asked. Move to change rules if this is disallowed in your region. Sharing cases with concisely presented evidence allows for students to better comprehend the arguments that were put forth in the beginning of the debate, while allowing students to read the full paragraphs that may have been summarized. Debaters will increase trust in their opponents while simultaneously increasing their knowledge on the subject being debated. I am convinced accountability to peers will reduce sloppy work, which in turn will help hold debaters to a work ethic and academic standard that should be expected.

As educators and as competitors, the Public Forum community needs to work together to hold ourselves to a higher level of accountability than the status quo. From teaching about ethics, to holding our students to academic standards of research, to increasing transparency in order to increase trust and learning, we have clear steps we can take toward solving evidence concerns in the community..

Carol Green is a one-diamond coach from the Harker School in California.