Author Archives
The Basics of Evidence Ethics by Adam Torson
As with any academic endeavor, it is inappropriate to misrepresent evidence in debate. The virtue of intellectual honesty is central to any forensic endeavor, and debate writing is an important model for academic writing in other settings (where breaches of evidence ethics can result in severe repercussions). Mistakes are inevitable, but students, coaches, and judges should all be careful about being too lax when it comes to evidence ethics.
There are definitely some grey areas for what kind of evidence use is acceptable, particularly given that in debate it is standard practice to line down cards significantly and read them very quickly. That said, there are some basic rules that will take you most of the way in preventing inappropriate evidence use. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Three Ways to Improve Your Argument Comparison
I believe that argument comparison is most often the skill that distinguishes good debaters from great debaters. It is the fundamental skill behind many of those intangible elements we identify with top tier competitors, like the ability to debate “above the flow,” talk about the “big picture” without neglecting the line-by-line, and deploy great “strategic vision.” All of this has to do primarily with how arguments interact with one another. Below are three tips to help you improve your argument comparison.
Three Ways to Answer Skepticism
In debate we use the term “skepticism” to refer to a broad set of arguments which conclude that no sound normative conclusions can be drawn. It is therefore never appropriate, the argument goes, to say that a given action or policy is morally right or wrong.
Arguments with skeptical conclusions go in and out of fashion in LD. Right now you see them most often intertwined with permissibility debates. “If nothing is prohibited then everything is permissible.” That is a highly questionable conclusion, but not directly the subject of this article. My hope is to give you a set of intuitive answers to skeptical arguments without the need to resort to theory.
Three Things You Can Do To Improve Your 2NR by Adam Torson
The conventional wisdom is that the 2NR is, as a general rule, the most poorly delivered speech in LD. In many rounds negs can afford to skate by because the time disadvantage makes up for a poorly conceived 2NR. But if you are content to skate by, you’re thinking like a minor leaguer. Separating yourself from the pack requires improving your 2NRs. Here are some things you can do that will help you on your way.
Three Judging Practices That Need To Stop by Adam Torson
Read more →