Is distortion of evidence a reason to vote?

[scott.robinson]

Too bad we can't rely on "enforcement through normal means."

[ankurm]

I'm receptive to the argument that tab rooms (and tournament directors) simply do not have the time to conduct a thorough review. But if a judge failed to call a debater out in a case where the evidence is clearly falsified because they didn't want to be "that judge", would that be the end of it? It just seems to me like the importance we place on honest portrayals of evidence would justify another step or check in the process (especially if we're willing to contemplate a major revision like a caselist to provide accountability). Some judges are either inept or unwilling to perform their roles as educators--the reason why leaving things to the debaters, the coaches, and the judge seems insufficient to me. I also guarantee you that judges are going to be very unwilling to pull the trigger on distorted evidence from the big names from the big schools or their friends. So, my argument is that if people are hoping judges will take the initiative going forward in cases of evidence distortion, don't hold your breath. My suggestion--at tournaments large enough and well-equipped enough to do so, have an ombudsman who can handle issues of evidence distortion, or some other kind of review process. But again, not well versed enough in tab rooms to evaluate the feasibility of a given proposal; I'll leave that to others.

While I'm personally fine calling out people who commit unethical acts, I get that there may be situations in which others are not similarly willing - and that this will result in a process where the well-connected or resource-rich schools benefit. This is a long way of saying that I get what you're saying, and I buy it.

Would the perm, then, solve your concern? It sounds like your issue is less "judges shouldn't do it" and more "judges won't always do it"...so why not have something like an appeal process that the ombudsman can head? Clearly, this doesn't solve the "cheating happens, opponent doesn't call it out, judge decides not to act" situation, but that one might be beyond any reasonable process...

[mcgin029]

A/T Jon Gordon -

I like Prince. He's a great funk and pop musician. Stick with me, this is going somewhere.

Early in his career, Prince's music was audaciously, self-consciously offensive to any conservative sensibility. He had popular hits with titles like "Head," "Cream," and "Gett Off." Perhaps his most famous hit was "Little Red Corvette," a song that was a forthright sexual metaphor. He appeared onstage in buttless pants. He performed a simulated sex act with a guitar during the Super Bowl half-time show.

Some time in the mid to late 90's, Prince underwent some kind of religious conversion. He stopped playing his earlier, potentially offensive music, and began playing only "clean" and "uplifting" music. And, most importantly, he ranted against the immorality of other musicians expressing their fornicationous ideas in song. How dare they, he would say. How dirty. How immoral.

This is what I think of when I read Jon Gordon ranting against people running arguments written by others.

In this metaphor, Gordon is Prince, the cases that Tim Hogan used to write for him are the buttless pants, and the annoying self-righteousness is still the annoying self-righteousness.

[mcgin029]

There are some finer points of evidence interpretation that I think should be cleared up as we consider whether evidence alteration / misrepresentation should be treated as a voting issue or as a means of disqualification:

1) Lining down a qualifier that alters the range of implication but not the intent of the card (for example, taking out the phrase "in Texas" in reference to a study to make it seem as though the study were done more broadly.)

I think this is clearly a violation of appropriate use of evidence because it changes the meaning of the card in a way that matters vis a vis the weight of the evidence. I don't know if I'd disqualify a debater or not.


2) Adding words to clarify context.

Mr Lewis mentions "adding words" as an example of a clear violation, but often, adding words to a quote is completely academically legit if the function of the added words is to clarify meaning in context -- to make the card make sense, where it otherwise would not. For example, we have a card that says "GEE" over and over again, and we've lined out "GEE" and replaced it with "state exit exam" (where it's clear that the article is talking about Georgia.) The addition of words is only a problem if (A) it changes the meaning (ie, if it's designed to magnify the impact of the card) or (B) if it's hidden. When we do this kind of thing to a card, we include the original text (not-highlighted) in the case, so that the opponent and judge can see the alteration if they need to.


There are a number of other circumstances that crop up. Sometimes it's a clear black-and-white issue of cheating, sometimes its carelessness or incompetence, sometimes it's an excusable error, and sometimes it's perfectly legitimate. If we're starting to think about dropping kids with zeros we should be cognizant of all of these possibilities.

[asmitty]

A/T Jon Gordon -

I like Prince. He's a great funk and pop musician. Stick with me, this is going somewhere.

Early in his career, Prince's music was audaciously, self-consciously offensive to any conservative sensibility. He had popular hits with titles like "Head," "Cream," and "Gett Off." Perhaps his most famous hit was "Little Red Corvette," a song that was a forthright sexual metaphor. He appeared onstage in buttless pants. He performed a simulated sex act with a guitar during the Super Bowl half-time show.

Some time in the mid to late 90's, Prince underwent some kind of religious conversion. He stopped playing his earlier, potentially offensive music, and began playing only "clean" and "uplifting" music. And, most importantly, he ranted against the immorality of other musicians expressing their fornicationous ideas in song. How dare they, he would say. How dirty. How immoral.

This is what I think of when I read Jon Gordon ranting against people running arguments written by others.

In this metaphor, Gordon is Prince, the cases that Tim Hogan used to write for him are the buttless pants, and the annoying self-righteousness is still the annoying self-righteousness.

[JamesM]

I dont understand why debaters dont just have full unaltered (unless gender modified) text of their evidence available in every round.

[JonGordon]

A/T Dave -

I guess you only respond to substance when you're debating against high schoolers... It's okay though - I wouldn't want to strain your mental capacity by forcing you to have an intellectual discussion with someone over the age of 18.

On a substantive level, yes I occasionally ran cases I didn't write myself. In all honesty though, I could probably count the number of times on one hand. Further, such rounds ALWAYS went much, much, much worse than when I ran cases I wrote myself. The fact of the matter is that writing cases is the basis of nearly all of the educational benefits of the activity - it forces you to read/ research, write better, construct logical arguments and think strategically about how different issues might play out in a round. The average debater spends maybe 10% of total time spent on the activity in debate rounds - the rest is preparation and it is that preparation that makes the activity intellectually and educationally valuable.

As I invited you to do so before, I'd still be EXTREMELY interested in hearing your pedagogical justification for why writing cases for your kids is acceptable. While I initially accepted your response that you were preoccupied with other more important things and didn't have time to post a justification, it seems as if you have plenty of time to post on this forum and to make ad hom attacks, so perhaps you're simply hiding and realize that you're unable to come up with a justification...

[Paul R. Dorasil]

That's a great idea for a new thread Jon. I would invite you to write one and I would certainly be on your side of that fight. However, can I appeal to keep this thread focused on distortion of evidence specifically?

[JonGordon]

Paul -

Sure, that seems more than reasonable. I had conceded as much in my previous post, but then couldn't resist the urge to respond to Dave.

Dave -

Wouldn't the modification of the card you discuss in the second point of your post (e.g. replacing "GEE" with "state exit exam") fall into the same category of evidence manipulation that you indict in the first point of your post? For example, it would seem to me that if the card were specifically discussing the "GEE" asserting that it more broadly applied to all state exit exams or even all Georgia state exit exams would seem to make it broader than intended when it's unclear that the other intended his analysis to apply to this broader group of exams. I would question why you wouldn't just stay true to the intent of the card and leave GEE and then make analytical arguments following the card as to why the analysis is more genuinely applicable.

Obviously evidence manipulation is an issue, so I'd be interested in hearing a proposed solution for a formal procedure to address the issue. I know that debaters have traditionally sought to check evidence manipulation to some extent by running theory arguments against opponents who don't have citations and/or cards in their original context on hand. Requiring debaters to read over cards/ articles in their initial context though in the middle of a round seems to be overly burdensome. I would therefore wonder whether we might establish some process whereby debaters have a window following a round to review articles from which cards were cut against cards as read by opponents in round and formally challenge any perceived distortions. Each debater could be required to suppl their opponent with the requisite materials following the round.

[mcgin029]

Wouldn't the modification of the card you discuss in the second point of your post (e.g. replacing "GEE" with "state exit exam") fall into the same category of evidence manipulation that you indict in the first point of your post? For example, it would seem to me that if the card were specifically discussing the "GEE" asserting that it more broadly applied to all state exit exams or even all state exit exams would seem to make it broader than intended when it's unclear that the other intended his analysis to apply to this broader group of exams. I would question why you wouldn't just stay true to the intent of the card and leave GEE and then make analytical arguments following the card as to why the analysis is more genuinely applicable.

Re-read the post. It's clear from the context of the card that the card is referring to the state of Georgia, and the reference to "the state exam" suggests that it's talking about one state (as opposed to, say, "state exams...").

The point of modifying the card is to make the card sensical in context. It is disruptive to the communication to stop and say "By the way, GEE means 'Georgia Education Exam (or whatever)." At the same time, the meaning of the card is clear and unaltered with the change. This kind of adjustment is allowed by the MLA and broadly accepted in academia.

[JonGordon]

Sure, but doesn't that "disruption" in communication/ confusion necessarily make it easier for an opponent to pick up on the fact that the card is specific to a particular Georgia state exit exam rather than all exit exams, all state exit exams or even all Georgia state exit exams? In which case the corollary is true that altering the card makes it more likely that it will be possible to slip by an opponent the fact that the card's scope is much more limited than represented.

This is the sort of interesting question that inspired my initial post that I'd be hesitant to give judges the power to intervene and vote down evidence distortion as they see fit - namely, the fact that different judges/ people would have different standards for what constitutes evidence distortion. Thus, there would need to be (and probably ought to be) some formal procedure for discovering and punishing evidence distortion. Personally, I like the system I proposed whereby debaters are obligated to share with their opponents immediately following a round several pages of the source from which a card was cut (so that the card can be seen in context) as well as the text of the card as read in the round. Opponents could then have some specified window for bringing an official complaint to the tournament director, judge or some other chosen arbiter.

[RooseveltTY]

Sure, but doesn't that "disruption" in communication/ confusion necessarily make it easier for an opponent to pick up on the fact that the card is specific to a particular Georgia state exit exam rather than all exit exams, all state exit exams or even all Georgia state exit exams? In which case the corollary is true that altering the card makes it more likely that it will be possible to slip by an opponent the fact that the card's scope is much more limited than represented.

This is the sort of interesting question that inspired my initial post that I'd be hesitant to give judges the power to intervene and vote down evidence distortion as they see fit - namely, the fact that different judges/ people would have different standards for what constitutes evidence distortion. Thus, there would need to be (and probably ought to be) some formal procedure for discovering and punishing evidence distortion. Personally, I like the system I proposed whereby debaters are obligated to share with their opponents immediately following a round several pages of the source from which a card was cut (so that the card can be seen in context) as well as the text of the card as read in the round. Opponents could then have some specified window for bringing an official complaint to the tournament director, judge or some other chosen arbiter.

Would this apply to blocks, too? I think the legitimacy of checking evidence is good, but it does seem unrealistic for each debater to have a few pages of text for every single card they have on them.

[SStrausman]

Sure, but doesn't that "disruption" in communication/ confusion necessarily make it easier for an opponent to pick up on the fact that the card is specific to a particular Georgia state exit exam rather than all exit exams, all state exit exams or even all Georgia state exit exams? In which case the corollary is true that altering the card makes it more likely that it will be possible to slip by an opponent the fact that the card's scope is much more limited than represented.

This is the sort of interesting question that inspired my initial post that I'd be hesitant to give judges the power to intervene and vote down evidence distortion as they see fit - namely, the fact that different judges/ people would have different standards for what constitutes evidence distortion. Thus, there would need to be (and probably ought to be) some formal procedure for discovering and punishing evidence distortion. Personally, I like the system I proposed whereby debaters are obligated to share with their opponents immediately following a round several pages of the source from which a card was cut (so that the card can be seen in context) as well as the text of the card as read in the round. Opponents could then have some specified window for bringing an official complaint to the tournament director, judge or some other chosen arbiter.

Would this apply to blocks, too? I think the legitimacy of checking evidence is good, but it does seem unrealistic for each debater to have a few pages of text for every single card they have on them.

Why?

[m.hassin]

Would this apply to blocks, too? I think the legitimacy of checking evidence is good, but it does seem unrealistic for each debater to have a few pages of text for every single card they have on them.

Why?

+1. i keep the full text of the articles of every card i cut on my computer. it's completely reasonable and to not do so borders on academic dishonesty imo.

[Paul R. Dorasil]

I'm going to side with Mcgin on this one. IFF the card states that it is specific to Georgia (and that portion is read in the round), then it is fine to replace "GEE" with "the state exit exam." Doing so doesn't change the meaning of the card. It would be inappropriate if a debater read the card and then used it to justify an argument about state exit exams in general, but I don't know if that was done. Even if that was what happened, that's not an ethical violation. That's just bad debate.

I would therefore wonder whether we might establish some process whereby debaters have a window following a round to review articles from which cards were cut against cards as read by opponents in round and formally challenge any perceived distortions.

I think there are serious ethical and logistical concerns associated with doing that.

First, after a round, even if the judges have not disclosed yet, it may be obvious who won. If we further stipulate that this is a high stakes round, then debaters who suspect that the judges have voted against them would be incentivized to look frantically through their opponent's evidence and list as many objections as possible in hopes that one of them sticks. If they can find only one that the judge agrees was a misrepresentation, they may win the round by default. This just isn't how we want debate rounds decided. Every card has multiple interpretations. One could make an argument that any card had been misrepresented in some fashion. And as you said, judges have varying standards for what constitutes misrepresentation.

Second, how long are we to give debaters to comb through their opponents' evidence looking for something questionable? How long are we to give judges to review each of the objections raised by both debaters? We typically treat evidence misrepresentation as an ethical issue and we take ethical issues very serious because the consequences can be dire. So, when someone raises an objection on ethical grounds, we take as long as we have to. If we allow this sort of objection to become a strategic tool (as it is in law), then debaters will raise objections when they are losing and debate tournaments will never end. It is important that accusations of evidence distortion are rare, limited, and carry heavy costs for debaters who raise an objection and lose.

[Steven Adler]

I have decided to take down my post from last night. After discussing it with some people, I realized that my accusation was out of line and unfounded. I do not wish to further discuss the matter, but please take my withdrawl at face value and disregard the previous comment.