Purpose of Evidence
I was debating a novice in club, and she was giving her 2NC. It was absolutely stacked with disadvantages, and, honestly, it intimidated me. She was reading evidence after evidence, re-explaining it afterward, and then quickly moving on. I kid you not she probably read just a little less than 10 pieces! Just then I was literally praising the Lord that I wasn't the one who had to respond to that in the 1AR. But I, as the questioner, had to get up and cross-examine her. I got up there and just asked her to explain some of the evidence that she read and even after she looked over it, she was unable to interpret what the evidence meant, without rereading the tagline. [Point of clarity: She was a great speaker, way beyond her years! But when I was questioning her it was revealed that she seemed to not know what she was talking about, or what the evidence that she had been reading had meant]. And I can't say I'm not guilty of doing the same thing, and I know countless debaters who have done this as well. They read evidence that they don't understand which shows an issue: they don't understand the purpose of evidence.
I started out at a new club this year, and my partner and I are the evidence ring-leaders. What I like about this particular evidence ring is that before we do any research or even open our laptops (to get some background information), we just pick each other’s brains and think of some of the implications of the affirmative case that we could potentially bring about. Then, we would begin researching the case on that.
I think that the thing that we often forget is that evidence is supposed to back up your points not you backing up evidence. And what I mean by this will be seen as we get into the “4 Main Purposes of Evidence”! First, to support factual claims, second to support your position, third to establish credibility as a speaker, and fourth to establish credibility on a certain topic.
At this point in the season, we should all know that these are the purposes of evidence, but I think that in the midst of a round we often forget! - I know I do!
The first one is to support a factual claim: This one is self-explanatory, right? In team policy, we're debating about laws and the way those laws affect people, the economy, the earth, etc. So, we're analyzing and answering questions like, “who do these laws affect?” and, “how do they affect these people?” (specifically the number of people.) So evidence helps present numbers of the exact or approximate amount of people.
It's also used to support your position. Again this one is pretty obvious, but most importantly it implies that you have a position in the first place. Meaning before you actually look for evidence or you need to clarify what your position is. A lot of times, I see people who don't take a position on the topic at all. They just spit out evidence without making an underlying claim. Understanding your underlying claim needs to be precede throwing evidence on the table.
The third purpose of evidence is to establish credibility as a speaker. This is another one that is oftentimes forgotten. In my region, evidence abuse is not taken lightly, and there are multiple compliance issues for it. At Nationals, my partner and I were called to compliance for the smallest issue, but still, it disproved our credibility and lost us the round. Misusing evidence is so detrimental to a debater, and even to anyone outside of the world of the NCFCA. For example journalists get in so much trouble if they use an article out of context. Even in regular conversations, it looks awful if you use an outside source to prove your point and that outside source actually disproves you! So remember that when you are using that evidence it is a representation of your character – which sounds like a stretch, I know, but it's true. You want to make sure that you are using the right evidence, in the right context. Now, this may add to your load as a researcher because it makes you actually read the entire article or the context surrounding the piece you want to cut. However, it also benefits you in the long run because it gives you more background information on a specific topic. Which actually leads me to the fourth purpose: To establish credibility on a specific topic.
This shines through again in cross-examination when people are asking you about the evidence and you are able to explain it. You need to know what you're talking about. That sounds super simple, but I can still forget it. Especially when my partner hands me a piece of evidence that he cut himself, and says, “hey read this in your speech.” Then when I get up to the lectern, I read it, and when I say “...end quote”. Then in an attempt to impact and explain my evidence, I say, “Well it's saying that…” and then I basically rephrase what I tagged it as!
It's really important that you familiarize yourself with all the backup that you have. Now, this is really difficult sometimes, but team policy is a competitive speaking event. Don't just say things that you don't know or understand. Lou Tsu said “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” Honestly, in a way, he's right. But it is possible for you to speak and know what you're talking about. So do it! Understand your evidence, and also read the Rhetoric LLC sourcebook so you can understand quality evidence when you use it in a round!
Evidence is a tool, don't ever forget that. We often think that as soon as we say “according to…” The judge will immediately stop listening and be bored out of their mind while you read that “killer article.” Yes, it has happened, but don't assume that judges are not listening when you say quote. In fact, assume the contrary. Don't tag your evidence as something it isn't, don't take it out of context, don’t misunderstand your evidence, and don’t flat-out lie. It's so simple now but when you're in a round it can be tempting! Even when you're cutting evidence it can be tempting to even put a faulty date in. And maybe you don’t get caught, but what it does show is a character flaw: that is a lack of integrity. I'll admit I've even done it myself, and I promise there was no actual benefit in the long run.
If evidence is a tool, then use it correctly and you'll find it to be more efficient and more effective than you have before. Keep this in mind when looking for and using evidence.
Better is a poor man who walks with his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways. Proverbs 28:6. Translated in the NCFCA understanding of it - “better is a man of few medals who walks in his integrity than a rich man with trophies who is crooked in his ways.”
