“Better one handful with tranquility than two handfuls with toil and chasing after the wind.” -Ecclesiastes 4:6

If you’re familiar with the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes, you are undoubtedly aware of the common phrase “chasing after the wind.” Even a momentary picture in our minds of trying to catch wind shows how foolish it is. It’s simply unattainable, and you end up getting nowhere. Try getting a jar of wind sometime and tell me how that goes!

In the same way, citing (phantom evidence) is not only detrimental to your efforts, but may actually come back to bite you later in the round. This goes for both Team Policy and Lincoln-Douglas – all evidence cited must be present in the round.

What is phantom evidence, and how do people use it?

Phantom evidence is evidence that is not in your possession while you are speaking or is is only in your mind. You may have seen this used before (or you may have done it yourself) in a round when the speaker says “I don’t have the evidence with me, but it’s at the table” or “my partner will give you the specific evidence later.”

Phantom evidence is also commonly used as a way to try and mask poor organization on the spot, e.g. the debater is giving an argument, tries to find his piece of evidence to cite, but because his pile of papers is so disorganized, he simply tries to remember what it said. Although this is something done out of panic or at the moment, it’s still inexcusable along with premeditated phantom evidence usage.

The use of phantom evidence is not just an issue of novice students. Even advanced students can sneakily slide in phantom evidence by citing something out of the newspaper they got at the hotel room that morning or off of a brief they scanned before the round – without actually having that newspaper or brief present with them. This may seem innocuous and totally fine to you, but in reality resorting to this tactic is, at best, indicative of poor organization, at and worst, unethical.

Why is phantom evidence a bad thing?

Simply put, phantom evidence is unfair leverage you gain against your opponents as well as illegitimate credibility with the judge, unless the other team catches you in the act. You may have misremembered the evidence and twisted the author’s words unintentionally, and if the other team or the judge asks for the evidence, you are unable to give them the proof to back up your claims. The other team and the judge should be able to review your evidence to see if what you say it says is true. Phantom evidence eliminates that accountability. The judge is now weighing a piece of evidence that may be crucial to the round that you don’t actually have on hand.

Judges are more apt to like an honest debater rather than one who continually weasels his way out of arguments or cross-examination questions with “phantom evidence.” And besides, if the judge asks to see that evidence card, and you don’t actually have it, you’re in big trouble. Even if you do have it, that is technically unethical, as you’re only supposed to be able to provide evidence upon request that was actually documented and cited verbatim in round. Citing evidence, then not giving it in the round to your opponents, and then after the round saying “oh! We just found it! Here it is for you to look at, judge!” Is unfair to the other debaters, for hopefully obvious reasons.

How do I not use phantom evidence?

The answer to this is simple: Only use evidence that you actually have readily available in your hands. No exceptions. Be organized so that you can have what materials you need ready to go. Even if that takes a little extra prep time, do it – it’s better to prepare during your dedicated prep time than have to waste your speaking time finding evidence. Even if you have the best evidence card ever heard in the history of debate, none of that analysis matters if you don’t actually have it present.

If you do actually misplace your evidence for some reason, simply move on. It’s not worth the credibility lost if you get challenged on that point. In other words: “When in doubt, don’t cop out.”

How do I respond to someone using phantom evidence?

An important idea to remember when addressing a debater who may be shifting ground with phantom evidence is to always think the best of your opponents. Don’t be searching for opportunities to point the finger and say “Aha! They’re using phantom evidence!” When it might all be a simple misunderstanding.

Always be courteous, kind, yet direct in your requests for evidence, and if they brush off your inquiry and never provide the card in question, that is when you should point it out to the judge. I would suggest never using the actual phrase “phantom evidence” unless you explain it clearly to the judge. Rather, I’d probably say something along the lines of:

“Judge, my opponent(s) have cited evidence in this round that they have unfortunately not produced. In debate, it is key for us to be able to see their evidence to examine their backup. If they suddenly present it to you in their next speech or attempt to show it to you after the round, when we are unable to respond, please disregard it as that is making for an unequal playing field. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

So please, don’t use phantom evidence. A card not in your hands and readily accessible is worth the same as no card at all. If you legitimately do not have a citation for your argument, then be honest about it! After all, debate is supposed to be an activity that helps us learn to be winsome communicators for Christ. Winsome communicators are honest communicators, and honest communicators don’t cite phantom evidence.

Evan Buck is a Stoa speaker and debater who enjoys writing about debate, finance, and the business world. Some of his most notable achievements in competitive forensics include several first place awards in Apologetics, Extemporaneous, and Lincoln-Douglas debate; the #1 overall seed in LD in NITOC 2013, and most recently, was awarded Tournament Champion of the Point Loma Classic 2015. He is an alumnus of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and will strike up a conversation about liberty and free market capitalism at the drop of a dime! Follow him on Twitter to check out more of his writings.