Rodger Payne, University of Kansas

1983 - American Justice : Courting Disaster

It is ironic to write an article about the nature and value of researching debate evidence for a high school debate handbook. one would wonder if the average high school debater would even bother to read an essay on the subject, considering the plethora of good evidence available to him via debate handbooks put out by various educational groups. However, one would hope that for at least some debaters, an essay about research would be valuable. Indeed, while a handbook is a good place to begin one's preparation for a topic, it certainly should not be considered the "end-all" for evidence on a particular subject. For the beginning of the year, one can probably rely on handbook evidence, and the research in such a book will be somewhat useful throughout the year. However, as the debate season progresses, original research becomes a necessity. New cases and argument develop. Moreover, most handbooks have very little affirmative evidence and a debater would want to research his or her own affirmative case. Furthermore, the handbooks cannot predict all affirmative cases and will therefore not cover everything that needs to be researched, even in the beginning of the season. Finally, one might want to research arguments that are not in handbooks for the sake of surprising opposing teams, who may only be ready for ideas developed in the handbooks. It is my purpose to provide some basic information about researching for debate, including some special ,,tips" learned during many long hours spent in various libraries. I will begin with some ideas concerning where to begin research, progress to finding resources, and end with a section about selecting the particular quotes ("cutting" the evidence).

One might think that research begins in a library, but I do not believe that that is the case. Undoubtedly, the research process must include trips to the library, but truly good research should begin before one ever sets foot inside the doors. Initially, the debater should think about why he is researching. In particular, specific needs should be considered, especially areas or arguments which could be called ,.gaps" or "holes.', In other words, debaters should ponder in advance cases and arguments which require evidence, but for some reason or other are inadequately covered in their file. This includes situations where they have a number of evidence "cards" on a particular subject, but none are sufficient to beat a case or argument by themselves, or in any combination. If a certain team causes considerable pain (i.e., they always beat you), perhaps they should be the focus of some attention. However, just because they are advocating a certain case or argument, one should not necessarily go straight to the library in an attempt to beat them. Debaters should think ahead, planning arguments around opponent's weaknesses and strengths. Some teams are weak against new ideas, while others take a certain position on an argument and never change. Debaters should consider researching new ideas, or the answers that the latter type of debate team makes to particular arguments. Hopefully then, the next time one debates these teams, they will be pummeled by pre-planning and library work--in combination. Thinking ahead can lead to victories. Much can be said for visits to the library, but I believe that thought is the most important part of the process.

After thinking about the case areas or teams that need attention, make a list of the most important ideas. Once a library is visited, take special care to concentrate on the items In this list. Far too many trips to the library have become unsuccessful because of debaters whose attentions were diverted by abstract things of interest. Although wandering through the stacks looking for the criminal justice section might be interesting, far too often such !n action results in wasted time and effort. A pre-planned research strategy allows one to focus attention upon the most important needs. a debater thinks ahead and writes down the most important areas, he or she is most likely to spend the library hours researching these areas. He or she could never read everything written about a debate topic, so there is no reason to use a research strategy that presumes such a course. It is far better to make efficient use of all library time.

The next step in researching usually takes place in a library. Finding the source materials to research is a difficult process. recommend making oneself familiar with the various indexes available at the library. Needless to say, various communities have libraries of different qualities. '"the best libraries will have many, if not all, of the indexes which I will mention. Merely everyone is familiar with the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature. Under some circumstances, this is-a valuable research aid. However, often the sources found in this index are not the best that are available on particular subject matters. Generally, this guide is good for finding source materials on subjects of general interest, including current events. Like all other indexes that will be mentioned, it will be assumed that one knows how to use the index, although if this assumption is incorrect, debaters should consult with librarians or debate coaches. These people have experience with resource materials and should be able to help the high school debater learn to use them.

The Index to Legal Periodicals, similar in format To the Reader's Guide, is a particularly valuable research guide for topics which require extensive work related to legal matters. It contains citations for articles within law journals and is fairly simple to use. Next comes the Index to Government Periodicals, which can he found in the Government documents section of many libraries. It lists articles found in government journals, and is useful for finding articles stating the government's point of view on a particular subject. The Card Catalog is always important, especially for finding books by certain authors or on specific subjects. most major newspapers are indexed, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor. Wall street Journal, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angles Times. Most government documents are indexed in the Congressional Index Service (CIS), which is use f 1 for finding government hearings and other prints. The Social Science Citation Index is helpful for locating articles on subjects concerning the social sciences. A special name index is particularly useful for finding articles if all one knows about the citation is the author's name. There are numerous other indexes, many highly specialized, from which to pick. Unfortunately, deciding the index that one wants to use is part of the problem with finding high quality evidence, especially if large quantities of good evidence are desired. A librarian can help find the index, but he or she cannot always tell where to find what is wanted.

Knowing where to look is nearly as important as knowing what is wanted. A few tips might be useful, for if a debater keeps these ideas in mind, he or she can better find evidence. It is important to note that different types of sources seem to be good for different types of evidence. For instance, books can be helpful for finding concepts, some broad and some specific, but they are generally not as good for assessments of very recent phenomena. Often books are written months or years before they are published, which means that the ideas may not be as current as one would hope. This does not mean that books are not a good resource, however. Books are excellent for finding explanations of relationships. I have personally found that books are a great place to find "link" cards for disadvantages. Many authors seem to draw strange connections between ideas, which can be very useful for negative debaters. Even books that are not exactly "on-point" to a debate topic can have good evidence as many authors refrain from limiting their discussions to their own particular fields of expertise. P4any times authors try to connect their own ideas to those of others.

Journal articles also explain concepts, but they can also be much more up-to-date than can books. Journals can specialize, which means that they usually have articles about some particular field of academia. Law journals, for instance, specialize in articles about legal principles and court cases. These types of journals can be the "meat and potatoes" of a topic, if researched extensively.

Newspapers are also useful in several ways. First, they are excellent resources for finding recent evidence on particular subjects. Some topics require very up-to-date evidence, which might require daily reading of major newspapers. Many newspapers also have editorials which can be useful for finding interesting viewpoints on subjects. Editorial freedom allows these essayists to say literally anything about the issues which they address in their columns. one can find articles and editorials about issues by looking at newspapers whenever a particular event attracted media attention. For instance, the trial of John Hinckley meant that the insanity defense received much attention. Executions of prisoners are usually covered by the media; thus, capital punishment is the subject of many articles and editorials soon after an execution, as was the insanity defense after Hinckley's trial.

An old coach once told be that "You can find anything in the Congressional Record." I have found his observation to be generally true, as this source of evidence is very good. Congressmen tend to submit articles or discuss issues soon after media events. This means that much of what is said about newspapers above also applies to the Congressional Record. A debater can also find "floor debate" in this resource, as bills and resolutions are argued on the floor of Congress just as debaters argue their positions. other government documents are also excellent resources, as hearings attract many different viewpoints and government periodicals state the position of the United States Government. Government resources are particularly helpful because most of the content is geared towards policy analysis, which means that debaters can adapt real world arguments to debates.

Finally, opinions from federal court cases are published in the Federal Reporter, the Federal Supplement and the Supreme Court Reporter. On topics that require arguments about legal matters, court reporters are especially valuable. Again, these are indexed, but an explanation of the use of these indexes is beyond the scope of this paper. A librarian should be consulted for more information. Some libraries have a collection of Records and Briefs of the various courts, which are the briefs filed by attorneys involved in the cases. There are briefs for both sides in a court battle, which means that a debater can research both affirmative and negative from these briefs, no matter what decision the court renders in the case. I have found that these Records and Briefs contain good explanations of most arguments central to important cases and are excellent research tools.

Quite frankly, there are few shortcuts that can be taken in the evidence-gathering process. only with a great deal of experience in the library can steps be left out of the process. Even then, however, it still saves tine to know what to look for and figure out where to find it in advance. For general Policy debate, researchers should look at government documents, journals, and newspapers. For matters more related to the law, legal periodicals and court reporters are the best place to begin. Debaters interested in finding recent information would look in newspapers and the Congressional Record. Books are good for nearly allvt-hing, but should be consulted mainly when recency is not a major factor in the research efforts.

many high school students reading this article will undoubtedly have trouble locating some of the materials described because their local libraries will not have them. A number of steps can be taken to gain access to these materials. one obvious solution is to visit a different library. This might mean that a long distance trip is involved, but surely such an excursion would be just as manageable as attending a debate tournament. Perhaps a trip to a university library could be useful for high school debaters, or maybe a visit to a library located in the nearest large city would be helpful. I suggest planning out research needs before making such a trip because work can be accomplished more efficiently if planned in advance. Too often such trips to a library turn into mass copying sessions which yield much interesting information, but little useful evidence.

A remotely located debater could also write letters. Congressmen can be verv friendly about sending information, especially if specific items are requested. Congressmen can usually obtain government documents and might even be able to supply a school with an index or order-form for these documents. Letters to specific interest groups can also be useful, as these groups exist to supply information to further their causes. Nearly every debate topic finds someone with a vested interest and these groups might be quite willing to mail information to eager researchers. Next, some schools have worked out subscriptions to publications put out by interest groups. These groups print lots of materials, many of them periodicals, some of which can be sent free to educational institutions, including high schools. A chat with the school librarian might be useful towards this end. Finally, nearly every county seat has some sort of public-access legal library. Although the size of this facility varies across the country, some access is clearly better than no access, and debaters should check into this.

Cutting debate evidence is a skill that must be developed over time. It is difficult to know exactly what portions of articles, books, or other materials to use as evidence. one generally good idea is that a piece of evidence should offer a reason for some particular event, decision, phenomena or action. This is not always the case, however, as even evidence cards confining mere "facts" are sometimes needed in debates. Once an argument is in mind, it is somewhat easier to find evidence to support that argument than it is to find some quotes and use them to create an argument in the first place.

A beginning debater might want to start research in government documents which are geared toward policy debate because information might be easier to identify as evidence. Similarly, one could begin researching legal arguments in law journals or legal briefs since the authors generally write with "clash" in mind. A debate handbook might be another good place to start one's research, because a debater can easily see evidence supporting claims by examining the outline and evidence sections of most handbooks. Coaches are also helpful when learning how to research as most are experienced at teaching students how to find evidence to support claims. A beginning researcher could show his or her early efforts to a coach to gain some sort of feedback concerning evidence quality. older or more experienced debaters can also be helpful in this capacity. In the end, however, it will be up to the individual debater, by gaining experience in the library, to learn how to become a good researcher of debate evidence. It is a skill that is difficult to learn, but one certainly worth mastering.

Once a debater finds a piece of evidence, a full citation should be placed on the card. This handbook contains numerous examples of correctly cited evidence cards, but I will briefly describe what is needed. Generally, the author and his or her qualifications should be placed first on the evidence. Then, the source, whether book, journal or government document should be indicated. Then, the date of publication should be noted, and finally, the page number should be recorded. For government documents, the name of the particular hearing or agency should be listed, as this makes it easier for others to find the original source. This information should be listed in addition to the title of the document. A full citation is a debate courtesy that makes the activity more rewarding for everyone. By providing it, a debater assures the other team that his or her own evidence is authentic and can be checked easily. Indeed, it is good for the activity for opponents to seek out original sources because it allows them to learn to research also. A debate card with a full citation can be viewed much as a bibliographic citation in a paper or article.

Evidence should always be authentic. Unfortunately, for some questionable motives, some debaters feel the need to fabricate debate evidence. This is nearly an unpardonable sin. I have rarely though of an argument that could not be found somewhere in print (if it is a real argument, that is, rather than fantasy-although, some of the ideas that I have researched might have been considered fantasy at first thought). There is really no excuse for evidence fabrication. It is unethical to ",4rite" one's own cards. It is comparable to cheating on an examination in that it is seldom caught but is widely condemned. People Who have been caught fabricating generally lose debates, not only the ones in which they were caught fabricating, but other debates as well, as their evidence suddenly is scrutinized with increased care. Moreover, debaters who liberally paraphrase evidence also occasionally suffer embarrassment and losses. The crime is called "power-wording" and it can be committed whenever a student refuses to quote an authority verbatim. Ellipses can create other ethical problems, similar to fabrication and paraphrasing. Using three small dots can vastly change the meaning of evidence and a debater who uses ellipses should be very careful when doing so. Internal ellipses might be avoided whenever possible, as a rule.** When cutting evidence one should also use care to avoid taking material out of context. If a source concludes one way, it is not accurate to quote him if he is merely reciting the views of his opponents. Although many of these debate crimes might never be detected, one should avoid committing them. The activity needs some "rules" and clearly the authenticity of evidence should never need to be questioned. Debaters should be able to work on some sort of "honor system," whereby everyone trusts everyone else. unfortunately, the deeds of a few make it difficult for all the rest.

All in all, it has been difficult to describe research. Gathering evidence is something that is best learned by experience and no essay is going to fully explain all of the details involved. Hopefully, the words of advice offered in this article will be of some use to all levels of debate researchers, both experienced and inexperienced. I found that whenever I went to the library I tended to learn something new about it, so I really cannot hope to explain everything in one short essay. In general, though, a few specific things should be kept in mind whenever one considers debate research. First, always think about what the evidence needs are. For me, this often meant deciding upon finding specific pieces of evidence to support claims, and going to particular sources to find them. For a disadvantage, for instance, a liberal journal might be needed for a link, while a conservative book is consulted for the impact and a newspaper is read for recent evidence to indicate the uniqueness of the disadvantage. Second, one must know where the specific resources are located and which indexes to use to find the types of evidence desired. Finally, the specific evidence researched should support the desired claim and should be authentic ' This evidence must be fully cited on the evidence card, including all the details described earlier. With these three principles in mind, a debater can learn to be a better researcher. Good quality evidence is important in debate. Support for an argument through the use of authority is a time-tested method of proof and is certainly more credible than a blatant assertion by a student debater. Fortunately, research is an endeavor that can be learned through practice.

**(EDITOR'S NOTE: The discussion on ellipses is not intended to be interpreted as suggesting that material should be left out of a card and then indicated by an ellipse. NFL rules state that internal ellipses, those within the body of a card, cannot appear in evidence cards, unless they were in the original author's writing. All evidence which contains such ellipses in this book also contained the ellipses in the original work. It is suggested that debaters refrain from internal alteration of evidence cards.)

RODGER PAYNE was a four year debater at the University of Kansas, where he qualified three times for elimination rounds at the National Debate Tournament.