2.11 Verifying the Accuracy of Information Presented in Debate

Sound arguments require accurate facts as well as logical validity. Being able to separate fact from fiction is an important skill for everyone to develop, whether or not they engage in LD debate.

Effective debating requires students to limit themselves to factual statements that they believe are true. However, when stuck for factual justification for an argument they want to make, some debaters invent “facts.” If their opponent does not confront their “factual” claims, they become accepted as true for the rest of the debate, meaning voting issues in the debate may be decided based on incorrect information.

This presents an ethical problem for debate classes, since if there is no deduction for deliberately false statements debaters who are unscrupulous (or clueless) may attempt to win by making up “facts.” And there is no foolproof way to determine if a debater just made up a fact or actually thought what he said was true.

Since many of the students who take my debate classes are interested in law, I tell them that they are bound by the same rules that lawyers are in court: they may only present facts that they believe to be true. I also tell them that I will deduct points for arguments based on factually incorrect information, even if their opponent fails to recognize the falsehood (or doesn’t have a chance, if the falsehood appears in the final affirmative speech). Of course, their opponent can gain points for recognizing false statements. But this is not a perfect solution, especially since no one is capable of accurately determining whether every statement made in a debate is true. There is no perfect way to exclude false statements from debate, as presidential debate fact-checkers repeatedly demonstrate.

So how can debaters demonstrate the truth of their factual statements? By providing sources for each statement that does not involve common knowledge. This is the same standard applied to academic writing, so students should be (somewhat) familiar with their ethical duty to provide documentation.

As a political scientist, I use the citation form developed by the American Political Science Association (APSA)^[1]. This works well for LD debate since the APSA format requires very little source information in the text, relegating the details of sources to the bibliography. All debaters need mention during their speeches are authors of their sources and the year of publication. All additional information belongs in the bibliography of their prepared speech. For example, if the source is Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty and the publication year is 1960, all that is needed in the text of the speech is: “As Hayek wrote in 1960, . . . ” If the opposition debater wants more information, the request can be made during the cross-examination (or in the following speech). If the debater wants the audience to know more about the author, a short explanation like “as libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek wrote” could be added. For many sources (e.g. Reuters or Pew Research Polls), there is no need for any explanation other than the year. You can see how APSA citations work in the sample debates.

Evaluating Sources for Use in Debate

Publication of information does not mean the content is truthful. Debaters have a responsibility to investigate their sources and determine if they appear to be likely to have made correct statements. So how can they do this without spending precious time investigating each and every source?

1. The first question you should ask is how old the information is and whether it might be outdated. This is particularly true of studies that measure information during a specific time period, since conditions may have changed such that the time period studied is no longer analogous to the world today. In most cases, publications and websites will have dates, but what if they don’t? One way to determine whether the information is current is to look at the dates of the cited sources. If they are old, then you should investigate whether that the information remains accurate today.
2. The second question to ask is who the source is. In many cases, this is obvious from the website or publication. But often the publisher is different from the source. Consider an article headlined “New evidence that the death penalty reduces violent crime.” What matters is not who reported the evidence, but who generated it. Was it an academic study? A report by the FBI? An observation by a government official in a state where the death penalty is in use? It is important to determine the source of the information that you want to cite, not just who reported what the source said. In some cases, this will be included in the article, but not always. In that case, you may need to do more investigation to determine who produced the underlying study.
3. Once you have determined the source of the information, you need to determine if that source is reliable. An internet search is the best way to obtain this information. A good reputation is essential to the success of both professors and research institutions, so in most cases you can rely on their credentials as an indication that the information they present is factually correct. But people make mistakes, and academics have been known to falsify data, so credentials are not always enough to verify the source’s information.
4. When should you look behind academic credentials and seek more information about the source? One factor to take into account is the medium in which the information is published. Is it a peer-reviewed academic journal? If so, the likelihood is high that the information will be correct. Is it a major newspaper or television network? Here there is more need for caution, particulary if the article is geared more to persuade than to inform. The media often attempt to spark debate by choosing scholars on opposite sides of the issue, even if the consensus is that one side is most likely true. You might want to ask your artificial intelligence (AI) assistant whether there is a consensus on the issue or whether the source you want to use is regarded as truthful.
5. Another factor to take into account is whether the source provides documentation for his or her claims. This should be standard for academic journals, but until recently it was not for newspapers and broadcast media. Now many newspapers include links to the information that the source relies on, so you can check on whether there is evidence to support the claims. In many cases media websites will have links to similar bibliographic information. If there are no citations, you should probably use AI to see whether there is a consensus that a particular claim is correct.
6. If the publisher is an organization, you should determine if its purpose is to advocate a particular point of view, which is often the case. If so, the information it presents will be biased in favor of that point of view. While this means that this information will be one-sided, it is does not mean that it is unreliable, since presenting incorrect information will undercut the credibility of the organization. Use AI to investigate whether the source’s claims reflect a consensus or an outlier. When my students debate the death penalty, they often rely on websites that have a clear bias and include information of dubious validity. I have seen this boomerang when one debater cited a disputed study and the opposing debater was ready with evidence to undercut the methodology of that study. Showing that an opponent’s evidence is unsound is a big step toward winning a debate.
7. What about information from government publications? There are two issues to take into account here. First, is the government component partisan or non-partisan? A non-partisan agency like the Federal Reserve or the Congressional Research Service is more likely to present unbiased and reliable information than a partisan White House or Office of Management and Budget. Second, is the speaker an expert or a politician? A research scientist is more likely to present reliable information than a government official seeking to justify government policy. You should verify all statements by government officials to see if they are reflecting a consensus or making a political point.

Documenting Sources in a Debate Speech

I require all debaters to prepare a written constructive speech about a week before the debate. I comment on the speech and give the students one or more chances to revise their speech before turning it in for a grade the morning of their debate. Since the first affirmative constructive is entirely prepared, I require four pages, not including citations. Since only part of the first negative speech is prepared, I require only three pages. The page requirements even out if students do an equal number of affirmative and negative debates during the semester. Requiring drafts also gives me an opportunity to check on each debater’s sources.

At the end of the written speeches, I ask debaters need to provide a bibliography that lists all sources in alphabetical order by author’s last name. The basic APSA format for a reference is: Last name, first name. Year. Title of book or “Name of article.” If a book, add the place of publication, a colon, and the publisher’s trade name: Chicago: University Press. For articles accessed online, add the publication or website, and the url in clickable form. For print sources, put the volume and page numbers after the name of the publication. For example: Yale Law Review. 47: 209-233. You can see more examples in the bibliographies at the end of the constructive speeches in the sample debates.

Here are some other rules for APSA bibliographies:

1. If you have two or three authors, the second and third are in normal order, connected by ‘and.’ e.g., Holmes, Stephen and Cass Sunstein. 1999. The Cost of Rights. New York: Norton.
2. If you have four authors, after the first put ‘et al.’  Omit the rest of the names (and make it a point to never have more than two co-authors if you write political science articles).
3. If you cannot identify the author, then use the publication, in italics and omit it where it belongs later. E.g., Doctors without Borders. 2025. “Who We Are.”
4. If there is no date on a website, use the current year (since the information is continually being published).
5. If the article is in a book, put the title first (in quotation marks), followed by ‘, in’ and then the name of the book (in italics). E.g., Brendt, R. B. 1974. “Utilitarianism and the Rules of War,” in Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, War and Moral Responsibility. Princeton: University Press.
6.  If the article is in a newspaper, put the date immediately after the publication.
7.  If you are citing a case, the basic form is: Name of Case. Year. Legal Citation. E.g., Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer. 1952. 343 U.S. 579. If it is not a Supreme Court case, put the abbreviation of the court in parentheses.

For additional information, consult the APSA Style Manual.