Document #1 has been utilized for a number of years as a starting point for evidence standards.

I.  Standards of Evidence:  In general, violating these standards is not breaking the rules.  It does make your evidence less able to stand up to a challenge from the opposing team.  (Deliberately altering the author’s intent or inventing evidence is a different issue-dishonesty-that can result in disqualification from the tournament).

            A.  Four Standards

                        1.  Must be in the public domain

                                    a. Reasonably accessible

                                    b. Verifiable

                                    c. Published matter.

                        2.  Must be published in written form

                                    a.  Only quotable if someone puts it into written form & publishes it.

                          b.  Written form when you got it, and when you use it in a round

c.  Published on the web is considered "written".

d.  Published transcripts of public discussions

      (NPR, debate forums, news, etc.) are considered written.

 

3.  Must not be paraphrased. 

  a. You may explain the evidence afterward or before, but you must read it verbatim in the round. 

  b. Standard editing is permissible but must not alter the intent of the author. 

 

4.  Must have a complete source citation; you need to have it printed in your card or brief for inspection even if you don't read it aloud in the round

                                     a.  Printed evidence:  Author, title, name of publication, date, page number.

b. Internet evidence. You need to have a complete URL, and your access date. If asked what the date of the evidence is, don't quote your access date; if there is no date on the evidence itself then state that the evidence is undated. Be sure to put the access date on that evidence card since Internet evidence tends to disappear. Good sources have archives that will allow other debaters to retrieve the evidence if they have your access date. Internet evidence should also meet as many of the printed evidence standards as is possible.

c. Blogs.  If your internet evidence is from a blog then you should state that on your written evidence.  Remember that the credibility for blog evidence comes from the author(s) only.  Anyone can have a blog, even your opponent – you must establish the credibility of the blog author.  Published in an edited journal is stronger than blog even by the same author since it has been reviewed and approved by the editor.

                       

            B.  Editing evidence:

                        1. Preserve the intent of the author

Read the article or at least skim and scan it to understand the context before you cut the evidence.  Be sure that the quotation you found that says exactly what you want isn’t being used satirically in the article.

 

                        2. Preserve the original context in the written evidence card.

The other team or the judge should be able to verify that you have indeed preserved the intent of the author from your written evidence.  In your written evidence include enough to establish the context.  There was considerable discussion about how much extra material is needed to establish the context.  For some, a full paragraph is needed to establish the context, for others the concern was that it is impractical to carry so much information.  You will need to strike a balance, perhaps by having sufficient material to firmly establish the context for your important or controversial evidence (especially for your affirmative) and incorporating less context for the volume of backup and negative evidence.  When omitting words or sentences in a quotation, try to include the entire quotation in the card or brief. Highlight in some fashion the portion of the quotation you read aloud (larger font, highlighter, or strike-thru for the parts not read or …).  If you add words to the quotation for clarity then use square brackets to indicate [the added words].  Square brackets communicate more clearly which words were added since this is standard editting practice and authors frequently use rounded brackets themselves.

     3. Secondary sources are acceptable.

While it is ethically permissible to quote from a second source, it is preferable to go back to the original source.  Make it clear both in the speech and the written evidence that Heritage Foundation quoted ABC news.

 4. The speech should clearly communicate the quotation.

Be careful to distinguish between the evidence itself and your analysis of the evidence in the speech and in the printed 1AC.  If the spoken evidence contains a significant edit then it should be audibly indicated.  For example, cutting out 3 sentences in the middle of a quotation could be indicated with “and later in the paragraph the author goes on to say”.

 

Other thoughts

Personal correspondence with an expert is not in the public domain.  Go ahead and correspond with experts but don't quote that in a round.

'Publishing' private correspondence on your blog or wikipedia does not make the evidence reasonably accessible to other debaters.  Such evidence should be treated as argumentation by the debater rather than as evidence.

If the evidence in a round deviates significantly from these standards, get up in the very next speech and propose the evidence standard for the round.  This should be done to encourage one another to a higher standard, rather than to charge an ethics violation.  If someone paraphrases evidence in a round the issue is that the evidence is not verifiable (and hence should be treated as debater argumentation rather than evidence), NOT that the team broke the law.  I would encourage clubs to develop a strong, concise version of the evidence standard that can be used in a round.  I believe this will help promote the standards in a constructive way.

Once you read evidence in the debate round it becomes debate domain, even if it is requested after the round.  This means that the evidence and the source citation is open to inspection by the opposing team, the judge, tournament officials, or coaches.

Your evidence should be reasonably accessible to the other team in a round.  Do not hand them a 200 page evidence book and say it’s in there.  Do not format your evidence in 4 point font.  You should provide the evidence to the other team in essentially the same format as you use it yourself or as you would provide it to the judge if asked.

 

Document #2 is a recent proposal to provide clarifying language.

Stoa Resolution on Debate Evidence Ethics

WHEREAS, Stoa purposes to train Christian homeschooled students in Speech and Debate in order to better communicate a biblical world view.

WHEREAS, academic integrity is essential to the continued success of competitive forensics. Plagiarism, falsification, misrepresentation and fabrication all undermine debate’s necessary presupposition of honesty.

WHEREAS, evidence tampering exists within the home school debate community is. Parents and coaches complain of evidence irregularities and misconduct. Investigation reveals that many cases in the highest levels of debate competition contain suspect evidence and some evidence is fabricated outright.

WHEREAS, failure to proactively educate students about ethical expectations and enforce violations creates an environment that inadvertently encourages fraudulent evidence.

WHEREAS, ethical lapses are fueled by a variety of motivations from lazy research to win-at-all costs mentality. Regardless of the intention of the actor, ethical violations are unacceptable.

WHEREAS, the overriding principle of ethical evidence is to give suspect debaters the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and to ensure that one’s own evidence is beyond question.

WHEREAS, Stoa encourages coaches, parents, and judges to vigorously examine students’ evidence to preserve the integrity of an activity that is near and dear to our hearts.

NOW, THEREFORE: Stoa does enact the following resolution on debate evidence ethics:

Because Stoa believes that meaningful debate cannot occur on fabricated premises, Stoa purposes to denounce and sanction academic dishonesty. Stoa requires debaters to ethically use evidence at all times. Guided by customarily accepted academic standards, Stoa expects debaters to note omissions, note additions, accurately quote evidence in context, and properly cite all sources. In particular, unless orally noted, Stoa believes that students should not paraphrase evidence, use any other date besides the publication date, or insert their own analysis into a card. Additional practices that clash with the expectations of academic integrity are also denounced and subject to sanction.

Neither document delineates what to do in the case of allegations about evidence mishandling or penalties for its occurrence.