The Evidence Standard

Technology has changed the Speech and Debate community. I don't just mean that we now are able to become paperless or that we can store files on laptops for in-round use - I mean at a fundamental level. I recently had a conversation with a debater who competed in the early '90s about debate research in a time before Google. He described a world where research took significantly more time and effort and explained that modern debaters really take technology for granted. What many current debaters and even some coaches don't realize is that before the Internet, before computers, debate was much different. Without computers, students would go to these strange places called libraries to do their research using peculiar repositories of information called 'books.' I write this with more than a hint of sarcasm but in a serious sense, books have become a thing of the past for most debaters; why read through hundreds of pages to find a quote when you can just use a search engine for instant gratification? This trend in the use of technology is at the core of many shifts in the paradigm of debate and, unfortunately, it is at the core of a major problem, one that must be solved. This is the issue of evidence standards. While technology does make it significantly simpler to access a plethora of resources, it also opens the door to questionable practices. In the last few years, evidence issues have become more and more pervasive throughout the forensics community. It has become clear that in order to uphold the legitimacy of the event, unethical evidence practices must be stopped. While this issue seems to be a simple prioritization of potential success over morality, it is much deeper than that. As an activity, debate is meant to support the spread of ideas through a medium of clashing positions. Upon entering a round, debaters have the responsibility of presenting an argument to their opponents that is supported by legitimate warrants and that lead to relevant impacts. The most important part of winning an argument is the impact but the absolute key to argumentation is the legitimacy of the evidence. If a student supports an argument with 'facts' from the Internet that are simply untrue, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the meaningfulness of the argument evaporates. The assertion may win the round but it does not support the goal of this medium; it does not expand the student's mind. In fact, in many cases this practice leads to students misunderstanding the fundamental issues of our world as one cannot understand events if their interpretation is affected by falsities. The future of our world is bleak if an entire generation cannot distinguish between what is real and what is fabricated. While accidental application of false evidence is a problem, the purposeful use of deceptive materials is absolutely unethical; it goes against everything that debate stands for and magnifies students' misunderstanding of our world. Students and coaches must work together to quell the use of falsified and misrepresented evidence if the meaning of debate is to be upheld. I do not believe that falsifying evidence is compatible with the goals of this amazing activity. I, and the rest of the Champion Briefs staff, believe that it is our responsibility as mentors, coaches, and writers to fight the use of falsified evidence. We are taking a hard stance against the unethical proliferation of false information. As writers and as role models in the community, we resolve to uphold a new evidence standard; one that we believe will lead to the counter-balancing of this negative trend. Champion Briefs, its employees, managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate, even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never knowingly support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students' understanding of the world by using evidence from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the goals and vision of this activity.

These seven statements support the moral obligations of a company like Champion Briefs. While seemingly simple, they represent the complex notion of what it means to advance students' understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators. We hope that others will follow us in our quest to enhance the experiences and triumphs of students, coaches, and teachers everywhere.