Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate

Evidence is one of the important components of arguments in debate rounds. All debaters involved are expected to act in an ethical manner that is in accordance with the rules. In keeping with the National Speech & Debate Association Code of Honor, all participants are expected to use and interpret evidence, evidence rules, and procedures in good faith.

7.1. Responsibilities of Contestants Reading Evidence

Oral citations do not substitute for the written source citation. The full written citation must be provided if requested by an opponent or judge.

A. Evidence defined. Debaters are responsible for the validity of all evidence they introduce in the debate. Evidence

includes, but is not limited to: facts, statistics, or examples attributable to a specific, identifiable, authoritative source

used to support a claim. Unattributed ideas are the opinion of the student competitor and are not evidence.

).

F. Availability of evidence.

1. In all debate events, for reference, any material (evidence, cases, written citations, etc.) that is presented during the round must be made available to the opponent and/or judge during the round if requested. When requested, the original source or copy of the relevant (as outlined in 7.1.F.2.) pages of evidence read in the round must be available to the opponent in a timely fashion during the round and/or judge at the conclusion of the round.

2. Original source

(s) defined. Understanding that teams/individuals obtain their evidence in multiple ways, the

original source for evidence may include, but is not limited solely to, one of the following:

a. Accessing the live or displaying a copy of a web page (teams/individuals may access the internet to provide

this information if requested).

2. A copy of the page(s) the evidence is on, the page preceding, and the page following, or the actual printed (book, periodical, pamphlet, etc.) source.

3. Copies or electronic versions of published handbooks (i.e., Baylor Briefs; Planet Debate, etc.).

4. Electronic or printed versions or the webpage for a debate institute or the NDCA sponsored Open Evidence Project or similar sites.

3. Debaters, even if they have acquired the evidence other than by original research, are responsible for the content and accuracy of all evidence they present and/or read.

in

G. Distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all

debate events, debaters must mark their evidence in two ways:

1. Oral delivery of each piece of evidence must be identified by a clear oral pause or by saying phrases such as

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????

oral pauses are left solely to the discretion of the judge.

H.

7.2. Definitions of Evidence Violations

B. ????????????????-???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????????????????????????????????

2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.

Private communication prohibited. Private, personal correspondence or communication between an author and the

debater is inadmissible as evidence.

A. ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????

the conclusion of the author (e.g., ???????????????????????????????? ????????????????????; adding the word ????????????????????). Additionally, failure to bracket added words

would be considered distortion of evidence.

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when

requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.

3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.

If a student

paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is

taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.

4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion (as outlined in 7.4.C.).

C. ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????

???????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????? first read in the round, would not be ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????? their opponent questions the use of such an argument, then that debater has committed an evidence violation.

read the complete text of highlighted and/or underlined evidence

when, in fact, the contestant skips or omits portions of evidence.

D. ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????

discrediting or characterizing it. Reliance on a straw argument occurs in a debate round when a debater asserts

incorrectly that the author supports or endorses the straw argument as their own position.

7.3. Procedures for Resolving Evidence Violations

These decisions may not be appealed.

B. An appeal can only be made if the issue has been raised in the round with the exception of the issues listed in 7.3.C. Appeals may only be made if judge(s) have misapplied, misinterpreted, or ignored a rule.

1. The team/individual alleging a violation must make a definitive indication that they are formally alleging a

violation of an evidence rule.

2. The team/individual alleging the violation of the evidence must articulate the specific violation as defined in

7.2.A.; 7.2.B. and/or 7.2.C.

3. The judge should stop the round at that time to examine the evidence from both teams/individuals and render a

decision about the credibility of the evidence.

a. If the judge determines that the allegation is legitimate and an evidence violation has occurred, the

team/individual committing the violation will be given the loss in the round. Other sanctions may apply as

well as articulated in 7.3.E.

b. If the judge determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the

team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round.

E. The procedures for making an appeal or post-round formal allegation are as follows:

1. A coach or school-affiliated adult representative from the school(s) competing in the debate or a judge for the round must notify the tabulation committee of intent to submit an appeal or formal post-round allegation within 20 minutes of the end of the debate round. The 20-

, or to the contrary of

minute time period begins once the last ballot from all

rounds (if flighted, both flights) has been collected by the tabulation committee.

2. The coach must submit the post-round formal allegation to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the

formal notification of the intent to appeal. The allegation must be in writing and articulate the specific evidence

violation that is being challenged. The challenged contestant and coach will then be notified.

3. If the tabulation committee determines that the original protest has merit, the coach or school affiliated adult

and contestant(s) being challenged will be given 20 minutes to provide evidence denying

the claim. If such evidence cannot be offered, the challenged debater(s) will be given the loss in the round and may be subject to additional penalties. If the tabulation committee determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round.

to be

4. The tabulation committee has the discretion of extending the time limits for these actions if circumstances do

not allow a coach or school-affiliated adult

available within the prescribed time limits.

F. ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????? ????y the coach or school affiliated adult.

The following procedure should be followed:

1. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the notification to

disqualify.

2. The tabulation committee will then submit the appeal to the national office referee(s). The committee will

contact the national office referee once the written appeal has been received. Both sides will be able to provide

written explanations and supporting evidence to defend their individual side.

3. A decision will be rendered in a timely manner. The decision of the national office shall be final and cannot be

appealed.

4. No more than one round may occur between the round being protested and the decision of the national office

referee.

5. If the appeal is successful and the contestant(s) may now continue in the tournament, they will be put into the appropriate bracket for pairing the debates.

to

ensure

panel's decision as a normal win or loss; the outcome is thus tabulated in the same fashion as a round in which

7.4. Penalties for Evidence Violations

B. If a debater(s) commits an evidenc???? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????), the ???????????? ???????? ???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????, or the use

???????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????), it will result in a loss for the debater(s) committing the evidence violation. The judge should

award zero speaker points (if applicable), and indicate the reason for decision on the ballot.

C. If debater(s) commits an evidence ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????-existent ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????????????????

by 7.2.B.) the offending debater(s) will lose the debate and be disqualified from the tournament. However, if a

B.) violation during an in-round formal allegation, but can produce it after the round within 20 minutes to the tabulation committee, the committee may decide not to

disqualify the entry. The loss that was recorded by the judge may not be changed. If a post-round protest is levied against a debater for not providing evidence or an original source in round (non-existent evidence), and the judge confirms they in fact did not provide the evidence in a timely fashion when requested in round, the debater(s) will lose the round and be disqualified from the tournament. However, if a debater(s) produces the evidence within the post-round challenge period, that debater(s) may avoid disqualification.

debater(s) loses a round due ???????? ????????????????-???????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????

D. Evidence infractions violate the Code of Honor. Depending on the severity

said offe???????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? advisor, loss of all District and/or National

Tournament merit points, including trophy and sweepstakes points for the offending student(s), and/or revocation of

Association membership. These decisions would be left to the national office, and not the individual District

Committee.

7.5. Tournament Adjustments

A. Under no circumstance will a tournament or part of a tournament be re-run because of a violation of these rules.

B. In the case of a disqualification of a debater(s), all ranks and decisions of other debater(s) made prior to the start of

the round being protested stand and no revision of past round ranks will take place.

applied.

, an offense may result in notification of

Penalties listed in 7.4. will be

C. When a round has been held between the round being protested and a final decision regarding the protest, the result

of that round will be recorded as follows:

1. If the protest is upheld, and a debater is disqualified, the opponent of the disqualified debater will receive a

forfeit win.

2. If the protest is overruled, and the protesting debater won the protested round, no revision of the result on the

ballot will take place.

3. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had no previous losses, no

revision of the result on the ballot will take place.

4. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had a previous loss, the

opponent will receive a forfeit win regardless of the result on the ballot.