Evidence and Research

We'll pull out the material from MB's article on evidence and research. That's a good starting point for a specific discussion.

A typical citation that is read in a debate round is simply an author’s last name. Qualifications, publication and year are rarely given and rarely checked. I was at the NDT a couple weekends back and watched and listened to a few debate rounds. In nearly every round, evidence comparisons were being made which, in many cases, including comparing an author’s qualifications. I understand why LD has a culture of ignoring citations. To some degree the lack of proper citation is a holdover from the old days of LD when the authors quoted were obvious and known philosophers and political theorists (Rawls, Aristotle, Kant, etc).

In addition to citation, there are two more issues that we are facing when it comes to research and evidence. First, there needs to be some consensus of what it means for something to be “published.” As the Editor-and-Chief of VictoryBriefsDaily.com, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with what is written on VBD being cited as evidence – whether that be articles or comments. Although, if we allow other credible blogs or credible commenters, then maybe “Bietz from VBD in 2008” is an inevitable citation in the future. As a community we need to discuss what passes as proper evidence.

The second big issue is how evidence is read in round in the context of strikethroughs, underlining, etc. There should be some community norm for how evidence is cut and what is available for opponents to read during a round.