Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
This answer is taken directly from Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate, Version 2.6 1995)
When you choose evidence--you want good evidence. What makes a good piece of evidence? There are four essential ingredients that make a piece of evidence a good piece of evidence. First, the evidence should come from a good source. Second, the evidence should be concise. Third, it should make a strong, persuasive point. And, fourth, the evidence should give strong support for that persuasive point.
GOOD SOURCE
First, you should use evidence from good sources. YOU SHOULD USE EVIDENCE FROM RESPECTED PEOPLE TO MAKE YOUR EVIDENCE CREDIBLE. It's unlikely that quoting Lyndon LaRouche will go over very well. Quoting Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor or Political Science Professor Lewis Dunn probably will. YOU SHOULD QUOTE THESE RESPECTED PEOPLE ON SUBJECTS IN WHICH THEY ARE EXPERTS. Quoting Sandra Day O'Connor on nuclear proliferation probably won't have as much impact as quoting Lewis Dunn, who is an expert on nuclear proliferation. AND BE SURE YOUR QUOTATIONS OF THESE RESPECTED EXPERTS ARE UP-TO-DATE. Quoting an early 1980's Lewis Dunn article on whether Israel has the nuclear bomb is probably out-of-date since a number of events in the late 1980's and early 1990's strongly point to Israel having a bomb.
CONCISE
Second, your evidence should make its point concisely. A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS USUALLY THREE TO EIGHT LINES LONG. Anything longer takes too much time in a speech and usually is not as clear as it should be. In addition, don't use evidence that includes irrelevant ideas and arguments. YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD MAKE ITS ONE MAIN POINT AND THEN END. If your evidence makes more than one point, rebracket that evidence. Cut out the irrelevant part or make the evidence into two pieces of evidence. So, for example, if a piece of evidence says, "space exploration can increase employment, lower inflation, and improve our trade balance," you should use it because it makes the one main point that space exploration improves the economy. If, on the other hand, that piece of evidence went on to say, "space exploration also increases our knowledge about space," you should rebracket. Use this latter quotation for a second piece of evidence.
PERSUASIVE POINT
Third, your evidence should make a strong, persuasive point. You want evidence that either supports the negative or the affirmative side of the topic. THE MAIN POINT OF YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PERSUASIVE AND RELEVANT. A quotation that says, "there are people in welfare offices," does not make a very persuasive point. You want evidence that says, "there are too many people on welfare," or "the government treats welfare recipients unfairly." IN ADDITION, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD MAKE ITS POINT FORCEFULLY. Skip evidence that includes "maybe," "if," and information that your opponents can use against you. For example, I would probably not use a piece of evidence to support a solar power program that said, "solar power might work if it is not cloudy, if the technology can be developed, and if the United States is willing to spend 3 trillion dollars on it." I would use a piece of evidence that said, "solar power does work and its use in millions of homes and businesses proves it can be expanded effectively throughout the United States."
SUPPORTS ITSELF
Fourth, your evidence should give solid, clear support for its main point. If your evidence said, "toxic waste disposal is not seriously dangerous to humans," your judge will want proof--support for that argument. To offer solid support, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD OFFER GOOD REASONS. If your evidence does not give any reason--do not use that piece of evidence. If your evidence does include a reason--it should be a good reason. A good reason includes at least the following. SO, FIRST, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD OFFER CLEAR REASONS. If your evidence says, "It is the greatest policy . . .," your judge will not know what "it" is. To avoid unclear evidence, bracket evidence that clearly describes the issue, or, on your own, accurately state what the "it" or "this" refers to in parentheses. SECOND, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD INCLUDE RELEVANT REASONS. If your evidence for the previous toxic waste argument gives the reason: "because there are waterways in Canada," I would say that the reason is irrelevant. THIRD, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD INCLUDE ACCURATE REASONS. If your evidence gives the reason: "because humans have neverly actually been exposed to toxic wastes from disposal sites," I would not believe that was accurate. FOURTH, YOUR EVIDENCE SHOULD USE GOOD REASONING. If your evidence gives the reason: "because some humans do not get cancer from toxic exposure, therefore there is no danger," I would not think the author's reasoning is very good. Some humans still do get cancer and a host of other diseases--so, I would not conclude that there is no danger. However, if the evidence said the following, you would have a good reason: "because very few disposal cites have leaked significantly. As a result, very few people have been exposed to toxins at a level that is dangerous to their health. In fact, according to six epidemiological studies, residents living near toxic disposal sites show no significant health differences from residents living in non-toxic sites." I might not agree with this argument--but I would agree the evidence gives a good reason for its conclusion.
Quiz Yourself
Now see if you can tell what is and what is not so good evidence by evaluating the following evidence.
1) Charles S. Maier, Krupp Foundation Professor of European Studies at Harvard University, July 1994, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, p. 48
Whereas political crises often emerge out of intense party loyalties, the public mood under study here involves a profound distrust of traditional parties. Granted, the rejection of traditional party organizations can evolve into the emergence of fierce new loyalties. But the crisis today retains its pre-political properties. It is less conflictual, more rooted in a civil society (actually in structures that are less developed than civil society) that has become deeply distrustful of the state.
2) Dr. Kenneth G. Manton, professor and assistant director of Duke's Center for Demographic Studies, April 1990, PREVENTION, page 12
Our study showed that proper nutrition and excercise, for example, can do a great deal to reduce risks of early death due to cardiovascular disease or cancer.
3) William H. Myers III, Founder/Director of the Center for the Study of Asian Organized Crime, April 21, 1994, FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, p. np.
His action, in one form or another, has been repeated across the face of the earth from such unlikely places as Jamaica (Chinese Exclusion Law 1940) to the United States (Exclusion Acts 1873-1942) to Indonesia (Forced repatriation of more than one million Chinese in 1959) and Viet Nam (the "Boat People" 1977).
ANSWERS:
1) A good piece of evidence. It makes a strong argument about public feelings toward politics and the government.
2) An okay piece. It makes a strong point supported by a study that says nutrition and excercise improve people's health--however, it would be good to know the name of the study and for the evidence to be longer and give more support.
3) Not so good. We do not know what "his action" and the evidence does not appear to make a persuasive point.
Thanks to Ray for asking this question on the c-x listserve.