debatenotes

USING AND CITING EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT AND SUPPORT ARGUMENTS By Joseph Zompetti, Illinois State University, USA

When we think of constructing and delivering arguments in our everyday conversations and speeches, we often think of how we and others feel about an issue of controversy. Beginning with the assumption that an issue either does not sit well with our personal beliefs or is quite consistent with such beliefs is not a bad place to start. As all of us are aware, our opinions about controversial issues not only provide a quick way to analyze an issue of controversy (at least one side of it), but they also help us to formulate more detailed reasons in support or rejection of a controversial proposition. Despite the appeal of basing our position on belief systems or opinions, we should be extremely careful when doing so. As someone once said, “Opinions are like noses, everyone has one.” In other words, the way we feel about a controversial issue does not set us apart from others who can equally examine a proposition based on their own views as well. So what separates us from the herd? How can we stand out from others when we construct and deliver arguments? These questions are not new. Nearly 3,000 years ago, in his treatise on Rhetoric, Aristotle discussed how arguments are most persuasive by combining ethos (credibility of the speaker), pathos (emotional appeal) and logos (logical reasoning). While all three of these elements are important, if not vital, to be persuasive, Cicero later suggested that Aristotle’s formula was too simplistic. As a result, Cicero described five major and crucial elements necessary for a persuasive case or speech: invention, arrangement, memory, style, and delivery. 32| International Debate Education Association

For our purposes here, we will only discuss invention (invenio) because it refers to Aristotle’s ethos and logos, but adds another important element to the equation. Cicero understood that that pathos (emotional appeal) strengthens an argument because it helps the speaker to identify with the audience. That connection between speaker and audience occurs when the perspectives and beliefs of both speaker and audience connect. For example, if I were to state that torturing innocent children is an inhumane act, and therefore should be rejected whenever possible, most people would tend to agree because my reasoning is based on a moral value (in this case an opinion based on pathos) that is shared by most people. However, if I were to further claim that since child torture is inhumane, the United Nations naturally should do everything it possibly can to eliminate it, then such reasoning may not be persuasive by itself because that opinion may not be as easily shared as the first argument. In other words, while some pathos-based opinions are persuasive, many more are not persuasive by themselves, and therefore require something additional to make the overall argument stronger and more convincing.

The same can be said of logos-based arguments. Using reasoning (or “logic”) alone is not sufficient in most cases. If I were to state that Uganda uses children as soldiers in their army, therefore we need to address the issue of child soldiers around the world, my argument may appeal to many people. Others might immediately question the extent of the problem in Uganda and further argue that just because a problem exists in Uganda, this does not mean the problem exists elsewhere. Such counter-statements are as important as they are wise. However, both sides to this controversial issue lack something that is extremely vital: Evidence. In other words, how are we to know if Uganda uses child soldiers? Just because I said so? How are we to know if child soldiers do not occur elsewhere in the world? Just because my opponent said so? Such assertions, while “logically” appealing, are simply not sufficient. Cicero knew that ethos and pathos-based arguments were not, by themselves, sufficient, particularly when addressing controversies of policy. He correctly argued that the use of emotion and reason were important and necessary, but in order to be persuasive and complete, they also needed some kind of evidentiary support. Hence, Cicero’s principle of invenio (invention) entails the construction of arguments by means of emotional and reasoning appeals and evidence. Thus, as critical and “logical” thinkers, we should demand something more from arguments that are premised merely on assumptions, even when those assumptions seem to make sense. It may seem perfectly plausible that the United Nations should act to encourage countries to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But if someone presented examples detailing how countries in the past have perceived such actions by the UN as infringements on their sovereignty, then the original argument that the UN should act, which is only an assertion, should be backed with evidence that discusses how

UN action would achieve compliance (i.e., a “cure” argument supported with evidence). The same could be said for an argument concerning the problem (or ill) in the present system. Even if a statement about the problem sounds correct (e.g., children are used as soldiers in many conflicts around the world), we should demand that evidence be presented to substantiate such a claim. Only in this way can we be sure that the problem does, in fact, exist and whether or not the problem is significant. What is Evidence? Now that we understand the value of evidence, we should consider what constitutes evidence. Before we do, however, we should note that not all evidence is the same, and some evidence is stronger and more persuasive than other types of evidence. We call this the “hierarchy of evidence,” in the sense that certain evidence is stronger than others. Evidence can be defined as any material that supports, justifies or proves a claim that is being presented. This, of course, is a broad definition and includes many things. To constitute a usable, valid form of evidence, the evidence must be verifiable, or at least must appear to exist within the realm of common sense. To constitute adherence, others must accept the claim as supported or justified. Adherence is important since narratives and personal experiences – while technically evidence – are frequently not accepted as supporting or justifying claims (i.e., narratives and experiences may be important, but are usually not sufficient by themselves). Evidence may include narratives, statistics, examples, expert testimony, experiments and factual demonstrations so long as they are valid and try to support a claim. The Hierarchy of Evidence As mentioned above, not all evidence is created equally – some evidence is considered to be stronger than others. Even the strongest evidence may suffer from some problems, but in comparison may still be stronger than other forms of evidence. Although the strength of a certain type of evidence may depend on the situation, audience and subject matter, we can generally categorize the strength of in the following way (with “1” being the strongest): 1. Expert testimony – this usually takes the form of quot-

International Debate Education Association |33

debatenotes ing someone who is an expert in the field relating to the topic of controversy. For example, someone who has extensively studied the human rights issues regarding children in Africa might be considered an “expert” when discussing child soldiers in Uganda. This type of evidence is particularly strong because few of us ever personally experience and study controversial problems. Experts are able to conduct research, compare their research with other research, apply methods to examine problems critically, and use their findings to generate verifiable or quasi-verifiable data. Some drawbacks to expert testimony evidence are: Is the expert is really a qualified expert? Is the testimony specifically pertinent to the argument being presented by the speaker? Can the testimony be verified by others? Is the testimony is still relevant since the expert gave their testimony? x.x+xyasoeifgu =iuwgherfg

2. Statistics – statistics are quantifiable measurements that help to substantiate the scope and significance of an issue. Statistics are very useful when attempting to visualize an abstract concept or to quickly substantiate an argument. For example, to say that 80% of all Ugandan children are conscripted into the Ugandan army is quite different than saying “many” children are soldiers in Uganda. However, statistics can be misleading. Whenever percentages are given, we should immediately question how the percentage was derived (i.e., saying that 5 out of 10 children are at risk of malnutrition seems significant, unless it is only 5 out of 10 children in Papua New Guinea (PNG) under the age of 2 years old – while important in the PNG, it is not a global issue). Other problems may occur with statistics as well, so despite their value and utility, they should be presented and accepted with some caution. 3. Experiments and Factual Demonstrations – these are forms of evidence that can actually demonstrate the claim being made. This form of evidence is extremely powerful.

34| International Debate Education Association

For example, one might demonstrate that gravity exists by dropping a book to see if it lands on the floor. Of course, such demonstrations or experiments may be difficult to accomplish in a speech or conversation situation. 4. Other Forms of Testimony (other than “expert) – other forms of testimony include quotations or references to statements from non-expert sources. Such sources may include people who are working toward becoming an expert (e.g., a law student who is aspiring to become an expert in treaty law is not quite an expert as a lawyer who has worked with treaties for 20 years), journalists, and other sources. These testimonies can be very useful to justify argumentative claims since they provide additional support. Of course, some drawbacks include the reliability of the source, the potential bias of the source, the lack of experience of the source, etc., as well as suffering from the same drawbacks as expert testimony. 5. Examples – offering situations that compare to the issue at-hand are called examples. We often can quickly think of examples to support our points – the UN is not a reliable agency since it failed to do its job in Burundi, or Uganda will find ways to not comply with a treaty just as the United States has, etc. Examples can be an important way to contextualize an argument and to offer a quick form of support. However, examples do not provide the same strength of support as other forms of evidence since it is easy to find a counter-example for every example given, many examples do not fully fit the situation they are likened to, and examples are often too abstract for specific or concrete discussions about controversial issues. 6. Narratives – narratives are statements

made by individuals who have personally experienced the subject matter in the discussion. For example, if someone hails from a country that uses child soldiers, that person may be able to speak about their experiences from that country in relationship to child soldiers. Narratives are very powerful forms of evidence, particularly since they carry a great deal of pathos-appeal (emotional appeal). However, since narratives are personal, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to verify. In reality, nothing prevents someone from presenting a narrative that may be completely false (although we would like to think this would not happen in a civilized and mature discussion). Finally, if there is a counter-narrative (someone else’s narrative that contradicts the original narrative), it is virtually impossible to reconcile which side is accurate and more compelling. Where to Locate Evidence Evidence can be found just about anywhere. We typically think of two areas to locate evidence: published material, and personallyacquired material. Published material includes books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, brochures, journals, and some material located on the Internet. Personally-acquired material includes statistics that may be derived from an individual, some examples, and narratives. Since published material is the strongest form of evidence, we should try to locate as much of that evidence as possible to support our arguments. Many reference books discuss how to research (e.g., Discovering the World Through Debate, published by IDEA), and so I will not discuss that here. How to Cite Evidence Citing evidence in a speech is extremely important. In fact, it is imperative that any material that is used to support an argument is cited, and cited correctly. Citing evidence is important so that the audience can recognize the evidence

when it is presented. Citing the evidence is also important so an opposing team can adequately refute the argument, especially if there are counter-arguments to be made about the quality of the evidence being used. For the purposes of debate, there are two aspects of evidence citation: citing evidence during the speech, and “proper” citation for purposes of future reference. Citing Evidence in a Speech Since evidence is open for debate, knowing where it comes from is important to an audience (in debate that usually means the opposing team and judges). As a result, we must adequately cite the evidence during our speeches. Of course, if a quotation comes from a book, there is no need to overspecify our citation to include things like page numbers. However, it is important to mention the author of the quotation, how the author is qualified to provide such a statement, and the date. These three elements – author name, qualifications, and date – are arguably the three most important elements to know about a source of evidence. These elements not only aid others in identifying the evidence in future speeches, but they also permit others to verify the accuracy of the evidence should they wish to research the evidence at a later time. Additionally, referring to the date of the evidence is imperative, since many debate arguments hinge on the recency of information used to support and justify the arguments presented. Consequently, it is not sufficient for a debater simply to refer to a packet of evidence received at the Youth Forum, or to cite the title of a periodical (e.g., “Time magazine says that the death penalty deters future crimes.”). Furthermore, adequately citing evidence during the speech not only provides useful information for the audience, but it also enhances the authoritative credibility of the speaker. Referring to the author, their qualifications, and the date will sound much more credible than simply referring to an evidence packet or magazine. “Proper” Citations The “proper” citing of evidence refers to the full citation of evidence used for future research. This is distinguished from the citation of evidence during a speech that does not have to be a complete citation. Instead, a “proper” citation is a full and complete citation of a piece of evidence that is accessible during or after a debate. The full citation is necessary to have in case an opponent or judge would like the full citation. A full citation may also be required to verify the accuracy of the evidence if needed. The “proper” citation is usually requested if future research is desired.

International Debate Education Association |35

debatenotes What we call the “proper” citing of evidence depends on the type of evidence being used. For all sources, however, it is important to obtain as much information as possible. Regarding Internet sources, in particular, it is crucial that the URL address is listed as completely as possible. Notice in our examples how the author name, qualifications and date of publication are listed first for easy reference in a debate round. Below we have provided examples (although not an exhaustive list) of some of the most common sources, using the death penalty as a topic: 1. Book (one author): Mary E. Williams, editor, 2001 (The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints) 2. Book (multiple authors): Hugo Bedau, Hugo Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at Tufts University & Paul G. Cassell, a University of Utah law professor, 2003 (Debating the Death Penalty. NY: Oxford Univ. Press). 3. Book (anthology, or collection of chapters with different authors): Lawrence R. Klein, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, & Brian Forst, Professor of Justice, Law & Society at the American University’s School of Public Affairs, 1978. (“The deterrent effect of capital punishment: An assessment of the estimates.” In Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin (eds.), Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Drime Rates. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.) 4. Journal (with one author): Isaac Ehrlich, Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at U of Buffalo, 1975 (“The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and death.” American Economic Review, vol. 65, pp. 397-417). 5. Journal (with more than one author): William C. Bailey, professor of sociology and an associate dean of graduate studies at Cleveland State University, & Ruth D. Peterson, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University, 1994. (“Murder, capital punishment, and deterrence: a review of the evidence and an examination of police killings,” Journal of Social Issues, Summer, vol. 50 n2 p53). 6. Magazine or Newspaper (with author):

36| International Debate Education Association

Thomas Sowell, fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1994 (“Death penalty is valid option.” St. Louis Post Dispatch, December, 12, p. 11C.) 7. Internet Periodical (with author): Dale O. Cloninger, professor of finance and economics at the Univ of Houston at Clear Lake, & Roberto Marchesini, professor of finance at Univ of Houston at Clear Lake, 2001. (“Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment,” Applied Economics, April, vol. 33, p. 569, http://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ applec/v33y2001i5p569-76.html.Accessed April 1 2005.) 8. Internet Think Tank: Paul Rosenzweig, senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 2003 (“The Death Penalty, America, and the World,” Heritage Foundation commentary, October 23, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ ed102303b.cfm. Accessed April 1 2005.) 9. General Internet Citation: Phil Porter, no qualifications given, 1998 (“The Economics of Capital Punishment,” http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ. html. Accessed April 1 2005.) Concluding Remarks Given that everyone has an opinion, belief or perspective on an issue, it is important to use evidence to justify, support or prove our claims, particularly in debate. Without evidence, many of our debates are left to pure conjecture or disputes about which team has the best example. Of course, evidence by itself does not constitute a strong debate, and in some cases evidence is not necessary. But when we need to use evidence, it is important to know which types of evidence are stronger than others. We also should know how to appropriately cite the evidence we use, both in our speeches and in the way we record the “proper” citation. Hopefully this article will help in these pursuits.