Competitive debate at the high school and intercollegiate level has dramatically changed over the last 20 years. Many of the techniques employed by both debaters and judges to better cope with this metamorphosis have increasingly been called into question. One such practice is the willful reading of evidence by judges to aid in their decision. The National Forensics League (NFL) has prohibited this practice at both its district and national tournaments. A recent attempt to impose a similar rule at the collegiate level was narrowly (and controversially) defeated. This trend concerns us. Our basic argument is that the reading of evidence after debates by judges is often academically useful, and that the judges are in the best position to determine whether or not this practice is justified in any given situation.

The limited authority of both the NFL and NDT committees present pragmatic difficulties in achieving the theoretical end of these rules. The NDT and the NFL lack jurisdiction to impose rules on any tournament except those under their direct control. This insures inconsistent enforcement of such rules, which can only create confusion and possibly taint the outcome of tournaments which impose rules for the first time all year. Additionally, the infrequent enforcement of such rules would remove the incentives necessary for debaters to change the nature of their activity.

There are several reasons why judges should be permitted to read evidence. Initially, judicial discretion mirrors real world practices. While we are aware that debate is often considered intellectually abstract, its policy focus reflects real world experiences. In the legislative context, Congressmen not only read their evidence aloud but also submit it for the record. In a courtroom, lawyers read their evidence aloud as well as submitting it to the judge and/or jury.

Oral presentation followed by a written record available for reference is common practice. The rationale for this real world practice is discussed shortly. The point here is that public advocates participating in similar activities are compelled to submit their evidence at an arbiter's request.

Judicial discretion must be maintained to guarantee argumentative accuracy and honesty. Judges are responsible to render fair and accurate decisions. Without the opportunity to check evidential wording, debaters may become abusive in their presentations and interpretations of evidence. A judges' ability to "call for cards" after debates is a necessary check on debaters' integrity. We realize that the deliberate tampering with evidence is a separate issue that is adequately addressed by the NFL and NDT. Our point is that if debaters spend valuable and scarce speech time arguing over the meaning of evidence, the judge should be allowed to verify each side's claims. A judge's calling for a given card is often attributable to a debater's persuasive ability to convince the judge of the evidence's importance. Practice in these situations are useful preparation for similar activities in the real world.

Perhaps the main reason we are against the prohibition of evidence reading is the uncompromised rigidity that follows. It is absolutely critical to make clear the inflexible nature of these rules. A one-time decision would be applied uniformly in debates throughout the nation without regard to the unique characteristics of each debate. our position affords significantly greater flexibility. We do not advocate a system which mandates that each and every judge be required to read evidence under delineated circumstances. Instead, we defend the ability of judges in whose authority rests the eventual decision to ascertain whether to read evidence on a case by case basis. It is important to take note of the fact that there is significant diversity at any given tournament. Some judges will read evidence some of the time, all of the time, or none of the time. In each circumstance, the decision ultimately rests with the judges. No one forces judges' who object to the practice to read evidence. Conversely, those same judges should not force their own perspectives on other judges. It is a system of diversity, flexibility, and respect; characteristics which we feel are necessary for the effective functioning of our activity.

One concern expressed by supporters of bans on reading evidence is that absent rules the time required to render decisions is enormous. Notwithstanding the alleged truth of the foregoing, prohibiting judges from reading evidence only marginally address this concern. Nearly all debaters and coaches have witnessed judges labor long and hard without reading a single card. The inability to check debaters' claims, conversely, leads to confusion, frustration, and ultimately bad decisions from a number of judges. The reading of a single piece of evidence might prevent a much longer decision-making process. Additionally, it is not at all clear that long decision-making periods are per se bad. Thorough adjudication of complex issues inevitably requires time. Similarly, people can hurry the Supreme Court or a Congressional committee, but their pushiness is not likely to force an earlier decision.

Another related objection is the potential problems of active judge intervention in the debate. We recognize that intervention can result from reading evidence after a round. Nonetheless, we feel that this problem is unrelated to the issue at hand. Judges consistently intervene; disregarding arguments because they find them silly, unpersuasive, or incomprehensible. it is quite obvious that a judge can intervene with or without the evidence in front of him. Judicial intervention that occurs while reading evidence is at least based on issues presented in the debate.

A major objective of these rulemakers is to enshrine an oral and persuasive focus for the activity. "Why have a debate?" these people complain, "Instead, just have the debaters send out their arguments through the mail." Such concerns ignore the intellectual portion of our activity. The competition between quality arguments from opposing point of view, especially in good close debates, sees both teams debating equally persuasively. In such cases, the reading of evidence may be essential to better ensure fair decisions. Nonetheless, we do agree that some judges probably do read too much evidence at the conclusion of debates. However, we propose to strike a balance between the relevant academic interests. A strongly worded recommendation from the relevant authorities would bring institutional pressure on judges who choose to read evidence yet simultaneously leave the locus of decision with those in the best position to decide.

A final objective of a prohibition is to slow down the rate of speech delivery. Because assessing the desirability of speed is a debate in and of itself, we concentrate on whether or not prohibition the reading of evidence achieves its desired effects (a link turn, if you will). The more likely outcome would be debaters increasing their rates of delivery. Debaters have the incentive to do this because the possibility of confusing the opponent and extending unanswered arguments is greater under such a system. Additionally, debaters remain more familiar with arguments than judges and thus the judge remains at a relative disadvantage. In fact, this disadvantage would seemingly be magnified due to the inability of judges to check their understanding of arguments with the evidence read. Independently, affirmatives may be favored. They have significant incentive to keep the debate muddled until the 2AR, and only at this point will arguments be clarified and verified. Some proponents of such rules claim that debaters would reread portions of evidence to support their points. However, if both sides do this, the Judge is left in the same uncertain quandary. Additionally, there is no reason why evidence that has been submitted for the record has to be repeated. If the judge has any questions about the arguments, he can check them. The rereading of evidence would probably detract from other arguments made in the debate. In sum, the oral and persuasive nature of our activity will probably remain unaffected by an evidence reading ban.

As long as debate remains a competitive activity, the participants will manipulate the rules to further their individual success. But judges can be expected to continue checking these tendencies by awarding victory to the team that does "the better job of debating." Proponents of rules restricting the reading of evidence believe that judges who read evidence are inadequately officiating the debate. If this were the case, debate would have a dismal future indeed. However, we are less pessimistic. We maintain faith in judges to make decisions about reading evidence based on a given debate's unique characteristics while simultaneously keeping the lofty goals of the rule proponents have in mind. After all, choice and diversity are the American way.

--------------------------

JEFF LEON debated at Redlands where he has qualified for the National Debate Tournament all three years.

LENNY GAIL, debating for Dartmouth College won the National Debate Tournament, was undefeated at the NDT for two years, and was named its top-speaker with the most points in history.