EVIDENCE

Prof. Jojo Abad, MPA

INTRODUCTION
• Evidence is the raw material of argumentation. It
consists of facts, opinions, and objects that are
used to generate proof. The advocate brings
together the raw materials and, by the process of
reasoning, produces new conclusions. We cannot
undertake critical thinking without a sound basis of
evidence. The use of evidence is not limited to
debates—although debates give us an excellent
means of learning about evidence. Even in
unstructured disputes in informal settings, we must
necessarily seek out evidence.
Classes of Evidence
• Direct Evidence tends to show the existence of a
fact in question without the intervention of the proof
of any other fact

• Presumptive Evidence, or indirect or

circumstantial evidence, is evidence that tends to
show the existence of a fact in question by proving
other, related facts, from which the fact in question
may be inferred
Sources of Evidence
Evidence is introduced into an argument from various sources.
By understanding the uses and limitations of the sources of
evidence, we will be more discerning in reaching our own
decisions and in developing arguments for the decisions of
others.
 Judicial Notice
 Public Records
 Public Writings
 Private Writings
 Testimony of Witnesses
 Personal Inspection
Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is the quickest, simplest, and easiest way of

introducing evidence into an argument. Judicial notice (the
term is borrowed from the courts) is the process whereby
certain evidence may be introduced into an argument without
the necessity of substantiation; it is assumed to be so well
known that it does not require substantiation.

• The Evidence Must Be Introduced.

• The Evidence Must Be Well Known.
• The Evidence May Be Refuted.
Public Records

Public records are often used as a source of evidence. On

many matters they are the most important evidence, because
private individuals or organizations lack the authority or
resources to assemble much of the evidence that can be found
only in public records.

Public records include all documents compiled or issued by

or with the approval of any governmental agency.
Public and Private Writings
• Public writings, another frequently used source of
evidence, include all written material, other than
public records, made available to the general
public.

• Private writings include all written material prepared

for private rather than public use. Some private
writings are designed to become public records at a
later date.
The Testimony of Witnesses
• The testimony of witnesses is one of the most common sources of
evidence. Testimony in court or before a governmental body is usually
given under oath and is subject to penalties for perjury or contempt.
Testimony outside the courtroom or hearing room is not subject to the
same legal restrictions and is usually more informal.

• The value of such testimony may vary considerably. Clearly the

testimony of a witness at a congressional hearing is readily admissible
by citing the hearings. The “testimony” of your political science professor
in a classroom lecture is not admissible in academic debate, but it may
constitute a valuable lead that will enable you to find admissible
evidence.
Personal Inspection
• When personal inspection is used as a source of evidence,
something is presented for examination to the persons
rendering the decision.

• Personal inspection is frequently used in courtroom

debates: Attorneys show juries and judges the murder
weapon, arrange for them to visit the scene of the crime, or
show them the plaintiff’s injuries. Evidence presented
through personal inspection has been carefully selected and
arranged by someone to support a particular argument; it
must therefore be examined with care.
Types of Evidence
• Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence
• Primary or Secondary Evidence
• Written or Unwritten Evidence
• Real or Personal Evidence
• Lay or Expert Evidence
• Prearranged or Casual Evidence
• Negative Evidence
• Evidence Aliunde
• Alternative Forms of Evidence
Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence
• Evidence is usually classified as judicial or extrajudicial.
Extrajudicial evidence is also known as “extralegal” or
“incompetent” evidence. The word incompetent has no
negative connotation when used in this sense, but merely
means “not admissible in court”; such evidence may be
used outside the court. Thus extrajudicial evidence is used
to satisfy persons about the facts requiring proof in any
situation other than a legal proceeding and is subject only to
the usual tests of evidence.
• Judicial evidence, also known as “legal” or “competent”
evidence, is evidence that is admissible in court. Such
evidence must satisfy not only the usual tests of evidence
but also the various technical rules of legal evidence.
Primary or Secondary Evidence
• Evidence is often classified as primary or secondary.
Primary evidence is the best evidence that the
circumstances admit. It affords the greatest certainty of the
matter in question, and it is original or firsthand evidence.
Secondary evidence is evidence that falls short of this
standard, because by its nature it suggests there is better
evidence of the matter in question.

• Primary evidence is stronger than secondary evidence

because there is less possibility of error. Secondary
evidence is weaker than primary evidence because it does
not derive its value solely from the credibility of the witness,
but rests largely on the veracity and competence of others.
Written or Unwritten Evidence
• Written evidence is evidence supplied by writings
of all kinds: books, newspapers, and magazines, as
well as less frequently used types of writing, such
as Roman numerals carved on the cornerstone of a
building.

• Unwritten evidence includes both oral testimony

and objects offered for personal inspection.
Real or Personal Evidence
• Real evidence is furnished by objects placed on
view or under inspection. In the courtroom real
evidence may consist of fingerprints, scars, or
weapons.

• Personal evidence is evidence furnished by

persons, and it may be in the form of oral or written
testimony. The credibility we attach to personal
evidence depends in large part on the competence
and honesty we attribute to the person providing
the testimony.
Lay or Expert Evidence
• Evidence is usually classified as either lay or expert. As a
practical matter, however, it is often difficult to distinguish
between the well-informed layperson and the expert.
• Lay evidence is provided by persons without any special
training, knowledge, or experience in the matter under
consideration. Such evidence is useful in areas that do not
require special qualifications.
• Expert evidence is evidence provided by persons with
special training, knowledge, or experience in the matter
under consideration. In the courtroom expert testimony is
permitted only when the inference to be drawn requires
something more than mere everyday experience.
Prearranged or Casual Evidence
• Prearranged evidence is created for the specific purpose of
recording certain information for possible future reference.
Many public records and public writings are of this type.
Political leaders often try to get their views “on the record,”
so that at election time they will have evidence that they
supported measures of interest to their constituents.

• Prearranged evidence is valuable because it is usually

created near the time that the event in question took place;
also, because it is intended for future reference, it is usually
prepared with care. At the same time, because this kind of
evidence is arranged, it may be subject to the influence of
those arranging it.
Casual Evidence
• Casual evidence is created without any effort being
made to create it and is not designed for possible
future reference.

• Casual evidence is valuable because the party

concerned did nothing to create the evidence. The
weakness of casual evidence is that its value is
usually not known at the time it is created, often no
effort is made to preserve it, and later efforts to
recall events may be subject to uncertainty.
Negative Evidence
• Negative evidence is the absence of evidence that
might reasonably be expected to be found were the
issue in question true.

•
Negative evidence must be introduced into the
argument with care. Advocates should claim
negative evidence only when they are certain there
is an absence of the evidence in question.
Evidence Aliunde
• Evidence aliunde, also known as “extraneous” or
“adminicular” evidence, explains or clarifies other
evidence. Often the meaning or significance of
evidence is not apparent on the presentation of the
evidence per se; therefore, that evidence must be
explained by the presentation of other evidence.
Alternative Forms of Evidence
• If the development of argumentation is considered outside
the traditional logical construct, importance of emotional
content and alternative viewpoints may become relevant.
Classroom and tournament debaters derive most of their
evidence from published sources. These sources represent
well-educated experts from academe, particular content
fields, government, and other privileged positions. In other
words, the sources of most quoted evidence are economic
and social elites within their respective societies. Thus, they
have access to traditional publication in academic journals,
periodicals, and other materials.
Alternative Forms of Evidence
They may be perfectly qualified to offer opinions and
conclusions about problems of general concern, but
their viewpoints may be limited by standpoint.
Therefore, it is beneficial at times for debaters to offer
their own nontraditional forms of proof, and those of
marginalized or disenfranchised persons. The form of
such evidence may be in narrative, poetry, prose, art,
music, or hip-hop. The content, although challenging
to measure, can be powerful and emotional, and can
offer viewpoints excluded by traditional standards.
THE PROBATIVE FORCE OF EVIDENCE
• We are concerned not only with the sources and types of
evidence but also with its probative force. Evidence may
only partially substantiate an issue, or it may be strong
enough to justify the claim conclusively in the minds of those
who render the decision.

– Partial Proof
– Corroborative Proof
– Indispensable Proof
– Conclusive Proof
• Partial proof is used to establish a detached fact in a series of
facts tending to support the issue in dispute.

• Corroborative proof, also known as “cumulative” or “additional”

proof, is strengthening or confirming evidence of a different
character in support of the same fact or proposition.

• Indispensable proof is evidence without which a particular issue

cannot be proved. In courtroom debates it is relatively easy to
identify indispensable evidence.

• Conclusive proof is evidence that is incontrovertible, either

because the law will not permit it to be contradicted or because it
is strong and convincing enough to override all evidence to the
contrary and to establish the proposition beyond reasonable
doubt.
Tests of Evidence
Evidence is the raw material of argumentation but
conflicting evidence from different sources which
cannot be reconciled. Conflicting evidence is not
limited to medicine but can be found in every field of
human affairs. Thus we must consider the tests of
evidence.
USES OF TESTS OF EVIDENCE

• Testing the Credibility of One’s Own Evidence

• Testing the Credibility of Evidence Advanced by an
Opponent
• Testing the Credibility of Evidence Advanced for a
Decision
TESTS OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
The tests of credible evidence considered have their roots in
the long history of argumentation and should give advocates a
reliable system for evaluating evidence. The tests of evidence
can be stated in the form of questions. All evidence obviously
does not have the same degree of strength, and thoughtful
persons test the degree of strength that decision renderers are
likely to assign to the evidence.
Sufficient Evidence
• The advocate must provide enough evidence to support the
issue being disputed. How much is enough? When we begin
our research, we may find some credible evidence in
support of our position. But in debatable matters there will
be credible evidence on the other side as well. Advocates
therefore must provide evidence that is more convincing
than the opposing evidence. Naturally they seek conclusive
evidence, but because this is often unavailable, they have to
settle for sufficient evidence—that is, for a fair
preponderance of evidence. In the civil courts the verdict is
based on a “preponderance of evidence.” In important
matters outside the civil courtroom, reasonable people also
usually apply this standard in making decisions.
Clear Evidence
• The advocate must provide evidence that is clear or that, by means
of evidence aliunde, can be made clear.

Evidence Consistent with Other Known Evidence

• Advocates must determine whether their evidence is consistent with
other known evidence. If it is, they may be able to strengthen their
evidence by corroborative evidence. If it is not, they have to be
prepared to show that their evidence is more credible than other
known evidence or that other known evidence is not applicable in this
particular case.

• This test, however, clearly does not prohibit the advocates from using
or considering evidence inconsistent with other known evidence.
Evidence Consistent Within Itself
• Advocates should study the evidence carefully and
determine whether it is consistent within itself.

Verifiable Evidence
• Advocates must always be able to verify their evidence—
that is, authenticate, confirm, and substantiate it. In
gathering evidence advocates should carefully check
evidence against other sources to satisfy themselves about
its validity before presenting it, and they should present
whatever supporting evidence may be necessary to their
audience. They should also carefully identify the source of
their evidence so that those who render the decision can
verify it themselves if they wish.
Competent Source of Evidence
• Advocates must determine whether the source of the evidence is
actually qualified to testify on the matter at issue. When the
source of evidence is a layperson, the following tests should be
applied.

1. Did the witness have an opportunity to observe the matter in

question?
2. Was the witness physically capable of observing the matter in
question?
3. Was the witness mentally capable of reporting his or her
observations?
4. Does the witness have official signs of respectability?
5. Is the witness well regarded by other authorities?
Unprejudiced Source of Evidence
• Advocates must determine whether the source of
evidence is prejudiced. In many cases people
testify about matters in which they have an interest,
and in some cases those who have a personal
stake in the matter are the only witnesses available.
Are these individuals free from prejudice? Do they
report matters objectively, or do they slant them in
a manner favorable to their own interests? The
advocate must determine whether the witness has
an interest in the matter at issue and whether this
interest is likely to influence his or her testimony.
Reliable Evidence
• Advocates must determine whether the source of
evidence is trustworthy. Does the source have a
reputation for honesty and accuracy in similar
matters?

Relevant Evidence
• Advocates must determine whether the evidence
is actually related to the matter at issue.
Sometimes evidence is offered that is not relevant
to the issue or that only seems to be relevant.
Statistically Sound Evidence
• Occasionally advocates may find it necessary to
use evidence in the form of statistics; however,
such evidence should be introduced into a speech
only when absolutely necessary.

1. Have Accurate Statistics Been Collected?

2. Have the Statistics Been Classified Accurately?
3. Has the Sampling Been Accurate?
4. Have the Units Been Accurately Defined?
Statistically Sound Evidence
5. Are the Data Statistically Significant?
6. Is the Base of the Percentage Reasonable?
7. Do the Visual Materials Report the Data Fairly?
8. Is Only Reasonable Precision Claimed for the
Statistics?
9. Are the Data Interpreted Reasonably?
10.Are the Questions Unbiased?
11.Are the Statistics Meaningful to the Audience?
The Most Recent Evidence
• Old evidence may sometimes be more valuable
than recent evidence.

Cumulative Evidence
• Although one piece of evidence is sometimes
enough to support a point, advocates are usually
in a stronger position if they can offer several
pieces of evidence from different sources or of
different types to substantiate their contentions.
Critical Evidence
• We may have much evidence, but do we have the
critical evidence—the evidence we really need in a
particular situation? In many cases evidence made
available to us is distorted.
TESTS OF AUDIENCE ACCEPTABILITY
• In addition to tests of evidence credibility, the
advocate must also apply tests of audience
acceptability. Some evidence that might appear
credible may not be acceptable to the audience;
therefore the advocate must consider not only how
the audience views the credibility of the evidence
but also the acceptability of the evidence to the
audience.
Evidence Consistent with Audience Beliefs
• A negative answer to the tests of evidence previously
considered implies some weakness in the evidence. A
negative answer to the question of consistency with
audience beliefs, however, does not carry such an
implication; obviously advocates occasionally have to use
evidence inconsistent with audience beliefs. But when they
use such evidence, advocates should anticipate audience
resistance to it and take steps to overcome this resistance.
This means that they must analyze their audiences and
determine their beliefs on the various pieces of evidence
they plan to use.
Source Acceptable to the Audience
• The level of source acceptability does not imply any weakness in the
evidence itself; rather, it indicates a problem advocates have to
overcome. We know that audiences tend to believe some sources more
than others. If evidence comes from a source that has high prestige in
the minds of audience members, they are likely to accept it
automatically; if it comes from a source without special prestige for the
audience, it has to stand on its own merits; if it comes from a source the
audience has little or no respect for, it may be discredited regardless of
its intrinsic merits. Advocates, then, should try to use sources of
evidence that are acceptable to the audience. If they find it necessary to
use sources with low prestige, they must establish the credibility of the
sources, at least in this special case. When they find it absolutely
essential to use sources the audience is hostile to, they have to
overcome this hostility.
Evidence Suited to Audience Level
• It’s important that the evidence not be too technical or too
sophisticated for the audience to understand. In debates on
the issue of nuclear power plant safety, some of the primary
evidence was so technical that it could be understood only
by a physics maven. When debating before lay audiences,
the advocates were forced to discard the primary evidence
and turn to secondary evidence that made approximately
the same point in simpler terms. One debater summed up
such evidence by saying, “You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to understand that if a nuclear plant blows up, there
goes the neighborhood—Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire.”
Evidence Consistent with Audience Motives
• Advocates occasionally have to use evidence not in keeping with
the values and attitudes of the audience. In these cases they
should expect audience resistance.

Evidence Consistent with Audience Norms

• Certain audiences have well-defined norms for evaluating
evidence, and the advocate must be aware of and adapt to these
norms. Someone arguing a point of law before a group of lawyers
will find that they have definite ideas about how legal arguments
should be made. In the same way scientists, physicians,
accountants, policymakers, philosophers, and others usually
impose specific standards for evaluating evidence.
Evidence Documented for the Audience
• We saw earlier that evidence must be verifiable. To
give the audience the opportunity to verify
evidence, a speaker has to provide documentation
within his or her speech at the time of evidence
presentation.
Questions for Testing Evidence Credibility
In general, affirmative answers to these questions imply that the evidence is credible;

• negative answers imply a weakness in the evidence.

• Is there enough evidence?
• Is the evidence clear?
• Is the evidence consistent with other known evidence?
• Is the evidence consistent within itself?
• Is the evidence verifiable?
• Is the source of the evidence competent?
• Is the source of the evidence unprejudiced?
• Is the source of the evidence reliable?
• Is the evidence relevant?
• Is the evidence statistically sound?
• Is the evidence the most recent available?
• Is the evidence cumulative?
• Is the evidence critical?
Questions for Testing Audience Acceptability

In general, affirmative answers to these questions indicate that

the evidence will probably be acceptable to audiences;
negative answers indicate that it probably will not be
acceptable.

• Is the evidence consistent with the beliefs of the audience?

• Is the source of the evidence acceptable to the audience?
• Is the evidence suited to the level of the audience?
• Is the evidence consistent with the motives of the audience?
• Is the evidence consistent with the norms of the audience?
• Is the evidence documented for the audience?
END OF PRESENTATION