Cheaters Shouldn’t Prosper: Ethical Evidence Presentation in Academic Debate
This article was originally published in the March 2013 edition of the Rostrum.
Debate is an activity built upon a foundation of academic and ethical integrity. When two debaters or two teams debate one another, they use a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos in an effort to persuade their judge(s). Debaters’ attempts to violate the integrity of the game are rare, and in most cases the opponent and judge are able to serve as sufficient deterrents and safeguards against debaters looking to capitalize on dubious shortcuts. Attentive judges and careful opponents can take action against mischaracterizing arguments, suspicious evidentiary claims, offensive cross-examination strategies, and the like. Unfortunately, one of the most egregious examples of ethical misbehavior in Policy Debate is so difficult to detect and prosecute that the practice continues to occur with alarming frequency.
“Clipping” and/or “cross-reading” pieces of evidence—the practice of reading substantially less of the evidence text than what was claimed to have been read—is not a new problem in Policy Debate. Instead, it is an issue with which the debate community has grappled for years. Many factors contribute to a debater’s bending of the rules—lack of knowledge, inadequate coach oversight, and the competitive nature of the activity are all possible explanations of the problem’s continued existence. But above all, perhaps the most significant factor behind the practice’s persistence is the glaring absence of an institutional stance that defines the problem, condemns the practice, and recommends to students, judges, and tournament directors best practices for resolving incidents when they arise. The community should encourage sponsoring organizations to adopt norms documents that recommend precise standards for evidence presentation, reasonable steps for judges who must adjudicate debates in which ethical accusations are levied, and a clear set of procedures for tournament directors who oversee a tournament in which a debater or team is found guilty of the aforementioned offense.
Other types of ethical misbehavior in debate—argument misrepresentation, evidence fabrication, inappropriate language, etc.—are easier to identify and prevent, so it’s imperative to precisely define the act of “clipping” or “crossreading” evidence. To “clip a card” or “cross-read evidence” is for a debater to omit a significant portion of his/her evidence while purporting to have verbally presented all of it. In high school Policy Debate, the problem usually manifests itself as a debater failing to read all of the underlined and/or highlighted portions of evidence without explicitly and verbally declaring the omission of evidence text to the opponent and judge. These are similar, but not interchangeable terms: “cross-reading” refers to the practice of omitting lines of evidence text in between the beginning and end of a particular card while “clipping” simply refers to a debater’s stopping reading the text of a card before its intended end. This is a small and semantic distinction—if a debater chooses to aggressively engage in either of these behaviors, they are breaking the rules and deserve to be punished. If debaters find themselves in a predicament in which they need to stop reading a piece of evidence before the end of the evidence text, they should verbally announce that they have stopped reading the card and precisely identify where they stopped. Usually, “card marked at (final word verbalized by the debater)” is sufficient.
Debaters who opt to clip or cross-read evidence are making a conscious decision to attack the core of Policy Debate as an institution. Debate is an activity that relies on trust and integrity. Debaters, coaches and judges rely on one another to abide by the rules, present arguments in an ethical fashion, and play the game in ways that ensure it remains fair and balanced. Any amount of tolerance for ethical misbehavior in Policy Debate could destroy the activity in a short amount of time—debaters, coaches, administrators, and stakeholders may all become quickly wary and permanently cautious of supporting an activity that appears to tolerate academic dishonesty. Our community cannot function if any of these support structures crumbles.
Those who clip their evidence and get away with it are at a tremendous strategic advantage. Regardless of the rate of speed which a debater chooses to speak, debate is a time-pressured activity that necessitates strategic argumentation during the round; skilled debaters are never able to say everything they’d like to say in the constraints of an eight-minute constructive or five-minute rebuttal. To take credit for reading more of the evidence text than was actually verbalized creates a structural bias in favor of the perpetrators. This particular method of slanting the playing field is one from which the other team is especially unlikely to recover. The very nature of debate makes deadly unethical tactics that manipulate the opposing team’s ability to intelligently focus their time and strategy.
The practice of clipping and crossreading is also pedagogically indefensible and educationally destructive. When debaters claim to have read more of their evidence than was actually introduced, they are becoming comfortable with unethical debating while learning the same social and psychological processes used to justify plagiarism and other forms of blatant academic dishonesty.1 High school students are an especially malleable population in this regard—the practices that debate students employ now are likely to influence the trajectory of their integrity for the rest of their lives.2 Taking action against clipping and cross-reading in high school debate is thus important not only for maintaining fairness in the isolated space of the contest round, but also because it can positively influence the offending party in a lasting way.
To be clear, the purpose of this article is not to punish debaters who accidentally skip over a word or two in the course of a five or eight minute speech—accidents happen, especially because teenagers’ visual memory capacity is typically underdeveloped.3 Instead, my intention is to expand the discussion and provide context so that all relevant parties are better able to differentiate between egregious cheating and honest mistakes.
Adjudicators should establish a precise and well-defined standard to identify what constitutes clipping and/or cross-reading, and make that standard available to students who ask. Moreover, judges must be prepared to act on that standard if and when they adjudicate a debate in which unethical evidence presentation occurs. It’s easy but destructive for coaches, judges, and tournament directors to “slap the wrist” and take the easy way out of a difficult situation. It doesn’t matter if the offending party “didn’t mean to do it” or if “the clipped portion of the evidence wasn’t important” or if “this was the first time I cheated, really”—these are the loopholes that have allowed the problem to persist. Judges must take consistent and decisive action against card clipping and cross-reading when it happens, every time it happens—any other standard allows the process to continue unabated.
One of the most significant reasons that the problem of unethical evidence presentation continues to plague high school Policy Debate is the lack of institutional and individual norms against the practice. There currently exists no standardized definition of what constitutes clipping or cross-reading. Moreover, the punishments for academic dishonesty in debate lack uniformity and (in many cases) teeth.4 Resolving both of these flaws is imperative to curbing the trend.
Organizations that sponsor competitive debate should adopt a norms document that defines what constitutes unethical presentation of evidence in the contest round. Today, many coaches, judges, and tournament directors struggle to identify the line between careless debating and problematic behavior. When confronted with the unpleasant task of handling an accusation, they might wonder, “How bad must the misbehavior be to justify punishment? One word? One sentence? Ten sentences? Must the accusing party possess a recording?” A document that answers these questions would be immensely helpful in remedying the confusion, even if the document’s only guidance was to advise the adjudicator to use his/her best judgment as an educator.
Such a document would also advise students of the appropriate steps for levying an accusation. For example, a norms document could suggest that if a debater believes that his/her opponent is clipping or cross-reading, s/he should immediately begin making note of which parts of the opposition’s evidence were omitted and at what time in the speech those omissions occurred. Debaters preparing to accuse the opposition of misconduct should also consider audio-recording their opponent’s speech, assuming they have the technology and recording is permitted under tournament rules and all relevant laws. Debaters would also be wise to take note of any mention of a procedure for evaluating ethical misconduct if their critic has posted an online judging philosophy. In the interest of being certain before accusing a fellow competitor of misconduct, debaters should also give the soon-to-be-accused an opportunity to take preparation time after his/her speech to accurately denote omissions. If—after all of those steps— the perpetrator has denied any wrongdoing and the other team is certain that they can prove their accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the accusing team should announce that they are stopping the debate because they are of the belief that the previous speaker clipped and/or cross-read evidence. The accusing team should then present their evidence of unethical behavior to the critic or panel of judges. In the event that the judge doesn’t believe the issue is serious enough to warrant stopping the debate, accusing debaters might consider introducing their accusation as a theoretical objection in their next speech.
An effective norms document would also outline an appropriate punishment if the accused party is found in violation. Potential punishments range from a drop in speaker points to ineligibility for season-long awards. Individual organizations can make these determinations for themselves, but it is important to note that the punishment must be severe in order to act as an effective deterrent. Past remedies have tried to deter debaters from clipping and cross-reading by punishment via the ballot and/or speaker points—but the problem continues. Any debater or debate team found guilty of clipping or cross-reading should receive a loss, the minimum amount of speaker points allowed by the tournament, and expulsion by the tournament director from the tournament at which the violation occurred. This suggestion may seem severe, but anything less makes it far too easy for debaters to rationalize their unethical behavior: “we’re likely to lose this round anyway, so it’s worth trying to secure any advantage we can.” Admittedly, the aforementioned thought process represents a cynical view of high school debaters—but it only takes a few debaters playing fast and loose with the rules of the game to spoil the institution’s reputation.
Individual debate teams should also establish a set of rules and guidelines for their debaters to work alongside or in lieu of institutional norms against cheating. These expectations should be communicated and reinforced to all members of a debate squad beginning in the first semester of a debater’s first year in an effort to signify the importance of ethical debating. Many teams at the high school and collegiate level have already taken action. The University of Michigan, for example, established a policy 15 years ago that “any team member found guilty of [unethical uses of debate evidence] shall be suspended from team travel for two months. Repeat offenders shall be suspended indefinitely.”5 It is unclear whether the University of Michigan debate team has updated its policy, but it’s an excellent blueprint for high school and collegiate programs to model. Policies like the one crafted in Ann Arbor allow directors to protect their team’s reputation while acting as a communal beacon of intolerance for unethical behavior.
Debate is an institution built by debaters, coaches, judges, and stakeholders upon a foundation of academic honesty and ethical integrity. The act of clipping and/or cross-reading evidence poses a very credible threat to the activity because it undermines the trust that members of the community place in one another to ensure students enjoy the benefits that debate provides. The problem of ethical misconduct in debate has taken many forms and existed for far too long. In light of the scope and longevity of the unethical evidence presentation problem, institutional action is long-overdue. Sponsoring organizations and individual debate squads should—if they haven’t already—craft a document that defines the problem and outlines appropriate steps for corrective action. Only by increasing awareness of the problem while simultaneously improving the deterrent value of the response can the debate community expect to kick the habit.
End Notes
1 Martin, Brian. “Plagiarism and Responsibility.” Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, Volume 6, Number 2. October 1984.
2 Ryan, Christopher M. “Age-related Improvement in Short-Term Memory Efficiency during Adolescence.” Developmental Neuropsychology, Volume 6, Number 3. 1990.
3 West, Robin L., Thomas H. Crook, and Kristina L. Barron. “Everyday Memory Performance Across the Life Span: Effects of Age and Noncognitive Individual Differences.” Psychology and Aging, Volume 7, Number 1. March 1992.
4 Manuel, Brian. “NDCA and Card-Clipping.” A reply to the National Debate Coaches’ Association List-Serv. 13 December 2012.
5 Mancuso, Steve. Former Debate Coach at the University of Michigan. “Michigan Team Clipping Policy.” Post to the NDT-CEDA E-Debate List-Serv. 28 October 1998.
Jon Voss is the Assistant Director of Debate at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, IL. The coach of the 2009-10 National Policy Debate Champions from Whitney M. Young Magnet High School, he is the recipient of the 2011 Acolyte Award and the 2012 NDCA Rising Star Award.