Clipping/Highlighting

[Brent Siemers]

>A lot of debaters will take a big piece of ev and highlight the parts
>that they think are relevant.  Then they'll read only those highlighted
>parts in the round.  In the next speech, though, they'll get up and say
>something like "the article assumes that..." or "the rest of the card
>answers the attacks" and start calling on the critic to read the unmarked
>parts of the ev that's been presented in order to verify their claims
>that the evidence says things in the unhighlited parts that are important
>to contextualize the ev.  Alternatively, the opposing team may say that
>the unhighlited parts of the evidence weaken the claim made by the former
>team, and then they ask the critic to read the card.
>
>Perhaps, instead of allowing clipping through highlighting, critics
>should expect the debaters to read the entirety of the card that they
>have chosen, instead of just the fun parts.  This would be good for a few
>reasons.  First, it would require the presentation of the full context of
>the evidence, rather than just the meaty parts, allowing the full idea
>that the author is presenting to come through instead of the (possibly)
>warped interpretation that debater wants to give it.  Second, it would
>eliminate the possiblility that debaters could highlight more or less
>than they actually read, as they would be expected to read it all,
>reducing judge uncertainty.  Third, it would encourage the search for
>evidence that is concise and precise while still containing warrants,
>rather than letting people pick the parts of a paragraph they like to put
>their own spin on someone else's words.  Fourth, it would eliminate
>verbal ellipses that edit the text down to what the debater wants the
>card to say, requiring that the totality of an idea be expressed instead
>of just a part.  Finally, if you want a critic to look at the card in the
>round, and you reference the unhighlighted parts, don't you think you
>really should have read those parts in your speech?


Although I agree with much of this I do think it is alright for debaters to
paraphrase evidence in debate rounds.  I liken this to the process we use
when we write a paper.  Debaters use evidence to support their claims, like
researchers use previous papers to support their argument.  If a debater
reads and correctly highlights to support a claim, that is only part of the
argument.  The whole point of the activity is to have debaters make
arguments from that evidence.  I think it is completely cool if they
paraphrase the ideas represented in the evidence to make their arguments.
Our job as critics is to examine their arguments on the basis of the
opponents' counter-arguments.  I see nothing wrong with debaters that find
they can better explain the ideas presented by the authors in their own
voice.  As long as debaters have highlighted the evidence in a manner that
matches the portion of the evidence read, the judges should be able to
determine whether or not the evidence suffeciently supports the claims made
by the speaker.  There are time constraints after all.  As long as debaters
do not take evidence out of context there should be very few problems with
this sort of practice.  After all, how different is highlighting a portion
of the evidence than the process of cutting the evidence out of a larger
article.  In both circumstances, debaters may or may not be leaving crucial
components of the author's argument out of the round.

Brent Siemers
UMKC