Comparing Evidence

Many of you are new to this site from the 3NR or MDTA forums. Hi. My overarching project for this site is writing a new guide for debaters that I'm calling Picking Up. Hope you like it

One of my flaws as a coach is that I tend to get ahead of myself too often. Telling a novice debater to "make smart arguments as to why your evidence is better than theirs" is good advice in general, but it's pretty much useless if I haven't taught that debater how to compare evidence in the first place.

This article really should have been written a long time ago, because comparing evidence is at the root of so much in debate. You need to pick your best cards to go at the top of your blocks, you need to win our cards are better than their cards arguments to effectively debate a round, you need to be able to know what a good card looks like in order to cut one, and so on. The problem with teaching something so fundamental is that it gets taken for granted. By the end of the average high school debate career you've evaluated so many pieces of evidence that the process becomes automatic, so much that you don't have to think about it. Intuition is awesome, but it's hard to teach.

I'm going to do the best I can at breaking down the process, but remember that the best way to get good at comparing evidence is to do it a lot: write a lot of blocks, cut a lot of cards, debate a lot of rounds.

So, Card A or Card B, which is better? I like to think of this process as a number of tests, like a checklist that I run in my brain. Think of it like a driving test: almost everybody is going to make a few mistakes, but the instructor is looking for overall competency and making sure that no flagrant violations occur.

The most important test for a piece of evidence to pass is the "says what they say it says" test, or do the tag and the text of the card agree? First read the underlined portion of the card: does the tag do the author justice, or has the author's point been overstated? Some common stretches that you'll see include taking a card that mentions "nuclear war" and tagging it "extinction," taking a card that says "conflict" and tagging it "nuclear war," or taking innuendos and suggetions and turning them into explicit claims. This is a pretty common practice, unfortunatley, mostly because too many debaters let their opponents get away with over-tagging their evidence.

Next, look at the part of the card that isn't underlined. Here you might find caveats (this will happen unless that thing happens), weasel words (possibly, some have argued that), alternate causalities (poverty leads to obesity, but so does lack of exercize, no after-school activities, and crappy school lunches), and other evidence that the argument is weaker than it looks. Rarely will a team go so far as to intentionally distort the direction of evidence (underlining around the word "not"), but the magnitude of the evidence will often be stretched, at least a little bit.

After evaluating the agreement between tag and text, I usually give a second thought to the argument presented in the text itself: do the author's conclusions logically follow from the presented data? Does the author commit any popular logical fallacies? Is the argument missing an important piece of data? Does the author answer the obvious objections to his or her position? This sounds like pretty basic stuff, but you'd be surprised how often major publications print stuff that fails this test.

The last set of tests that I want to mention center around the citation. I list this one last because it's easiest; new debaters tend to focus on date comparisons and shallow "bias" claims at the expense of the tests above. However, there are still some important citation comparisons that you want to be ready to make.

More recent evidence can be important, but only when it's important. Here's a pro tip: if you can't think up (or better yet, prove) an event that happened that would make the information in their card outdated, it's usually not worth your while to point out that your card is newer.

The qualifications of a card also matter, but comparing qualifications is usually not straightforward. Cards can have an institutional legitimacy - IE they are from a trusted publication or author with a history of providing accurate information. Cards can also come from someone with field expertise, they're respected, prolific, and/or have professional qualifications on the subject in question. Cards can neutral, or free of bias and conflict of interest. Cards can take more, better, or more appropriate data into account, or otherwise have a better methodology. Cards can also go through peer review, fact checking, or other editorial processes that lend more credence to what they say.

So a major national newspaper, a republican party strategist, a phd in physics, a non-partisan think tank, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, a JD candidate, and a political blogger are all "qualified," but they aren't all qualified for the same reasons, nor are they equally qualified to talk about the same things. Evaluating whether your author is better than theirs requires connecting the reasons that an author is qualified to reasons that it matters for this particular dispute. Don't just compare, compare and impact your comparisons.

In fact, that's pretty good advice for evidence comparisons in general. "Your evidence" is bound to pass some tests that "their evidence" does not, and vice versa. The arguments about which tests matter more are going to be very dependent on what is being argued, and eventually winning that debate becomes much more important than winning that your card is newer by 3 days.

The Race for the MDTA Cup: Week 3

Even though the entire community caught the flu this week, I still managed to get Week 3 calculated before Week 4 debates started. That's good, right! Here's the current standings for Policy, LD, and PF. Nothing new in classic since last week

Policy Teams
1. Wayzata - Luke Plutowski and Johanni Thunstrom (8)
2. Wayzata - Laura Holder & Shruti Satish (5)
2. Wayzata - Miranda Ehrlich and Meghna Sohoni (5)
2. Wayzata - Krishnan Ramanujan and Dru Svoboda (5)
3. Edina - Hannah Nelson & Erin Sielaff (4)
3. Eagan - Annie Martin and Kyra Stephenson (4)
3. Wayzata - Alex Bahls and Lina Li (4)
3. Wayzata - Mariah Donnelly & Devon Manley (4)

LD Debaters
1. Coon Rapids - Robyn Sellman (10)
2. Lakeville South - Dylan Slinger (8)
2. Apple Valley - Jon Slater (8)
3. BSM - Bennett Kenzie (5)
3. Robbinsdale Cooper - Chyenne Thibodo (5)
3. Coon Rapids - Chelsea Brown (5)

PF Teams
1. Eagan - Rachel Markon & Iaan Reynolds (6)
2. Eagan - Anne Beck & Matthew Burian (5)
2. Eagan - Weronika Janczuk & Haben Ghebregergish (5)
2. Eagan - Morgan Kuehn & David Wickard (5)
3. Eastview - Bryan Larson & Anthony Stagner (4)
3. Forest Lake - Nick Bergantine (4)
3. Lakeville South - Vanessa Johnston & Jacqueline Schmitt (4)

Policy Schools
1. Wayzata 18
2. Edina 10
3. Bloomington 9
4. Blake 8
4. Eagan 8

LD Schools
1. Coon Rapids 15
2. Lakeville South 13
3. Apple Valley 12
4. Eagan 8
5. Hopkins 8
6. BSM 8


PF Schools
1. Eagan 15
2. Eastview 9
2. Lakeville South 9
3. Apple Valley 8
3. SPA 8

Overall Schools
Eagan 30
Lakeville South 19
Blake 18
Apple Valley 18
Wayzata 18

And a little analysis
Wayzata Policy is having an excellent year. Currently they have 6 of the top 8 policy teams, and have built a substantial lead in the policy schools race. They'll be the team to beat this year.

LD remains intensely competitive on both the individual and team level. Expect it to remain that way over the next three weeks: the next two weekends have two tournaments each, followed by the Minneapple, so there will be lots of points in play.

Eagan is beginning to pull away in the overall school race, pushed ahead by a dominant PF squad and solid performances in policy and LD. They are well ahead in PF as well, although the race for the PF trophy looks very competitive if Eagan ends up winning the overall cup.

Good luck at Hopkins, Eastview, and Coon Rapids everyone.

The Race for the MDTA Cup: Week 2

Another scintillating week of Minnesota debate is in the books. This week's update features some lead changes, some tight races, and the introduction of Classic debate to the results (including last week's tournament at Roseville).

There are still a lot of ties, so keep in mind that my results processing does not currently implement any tiebreakers.

Policy Teams
1. Eagan - Annie Martin and Kyra Stephenson (4)
1. Wayzata - Mariah Donnelly & Devon Manley (4)
3. Wayzata - Krishnan Ramanujan and Dru Svoboda (3)
3. Blake - Jacob Derechin & Kentucky Morrow (3)
3. Wayzata - Luke Plutowski and Johanni Thunstrom (3)
3. Blake - Michael McGrath and Oliver Zosel (3)
3. Wayzata - Alex Aronovich and Carlee Nelson (3)
3. Wayzata - Miranda Ehrlich and Meghna Sohoni (3)
3. Wayzata - Oliver He and Faroz Mujir (3)

LD Debaters
1. Apple Valley - Jon Slater (5)
1. Coon Rapids - Robyn Sellman (5)
2. Coon Rapids - Chelsea Brown (4)
2. Lakeville South - Dylan Slinger (4)
3. Blake - Erik Legried (3)
3. St. Francis - Hannah Houle (3)
3. BSM - Bennett Kenzie (3)
3. Forest Lake - Kyle McCleary (3)
3. Lakeville North - Jayant Tripathy (3)
3. Lakeville South - Raffi Garnighian (3)
3. Robbinsdale Cooper - Chyenne Thibodo (3)

PF Teams
1. Eagan - Weronika Janczuk & Haben Ghebregergish (5)
2. Eastview - Bryan Larson & Anthony Stagner (4)
2. Forest Lake - Nick Bergantine (4)
3. Eagan - Rachel Markon & Iaan Reynolds (3)
3. Eastview - Maddie Johnson & Jason Vanderlinden (3)
3. SPA - Birk Mitau & Daniel Porter (3)
3. Anoka - Sam Hughes & Lucia Martin (3)
3. Apple Valley - Rhett Copaul & Comeron Michelsen (3)
3. Blake - Taylor Briggs & Sarah Carthen Watson (3)
3. Eagan - Anne Beck & Matthew Burian (3)
3. Eagan - Morgan Kuehn & David Wickard (3)
3. Forest Lake - Kristin Iverson & Laurel Pelton (3)
3. Lakeville South - Vanessa Johnston & Jacqueline Schmitt (3)

Classic Teams
1. MPA - Greta Stacy & Eric Baudry (5)
2. Eastview - Mark Besonen & Kristine Hiedeman (4)
3. Century - T. Williams & C. White (3)
3. Minnehaha - K. Koebele & R. Moen (3)
And a lot of teams with 2 points


Policy Schools
1. Wayzata 10
2. Blake 6
2. Eagan 6
3. Bloomington 5
4 .Edina 4
4. Rosemount 4
4. Sibley 4

LD Schools
1. Coon Rapids 9
2. Apple Valley 8
2. Lakeville South 8
3. BSM 6
4. Lakeville North 5
4. Eagan 5
4. St. Francis 5

PF Schools
1. Eagan 10
2. Eastview 9
3. SPA 8
4. Forest Lake 7
5. Lakeville South 6

Classic Schools
1. Eastview 8
2. Stillwater 7
3. MPA 6
4. Minnehaha 4
5. Rochester Century 4

Overall Schools
1. Eagan 21
2. Eastview 17
3. Blake 15
4. Lakeville South 14
5. Apple Valley 13

The U of M tournament next weekend is the first tournament with elimination rounds, so next week's update should include even more movement.

The Race for the MDTA Cup: Week 1

Alright, I've got the database all set up and the first week's results tabulated. Here is the first update on the MDTA cup race.

Since there is only one tournament in the books, you'll see a lot of ties. I'll list the top 8 entries in each division (which at this point means the top 8 at Lakeville South) and the top 5 schools in each division and overall.

Policy Teams
1. Wayzata - Krishnan Ramanujan and Dru Svoboda (3)
2. Blake - Kentucky Morrow and Jacob Derechin (2)
2. Bloomington, MN - Devin Long and Tom Zimmer (2)
2. Eagan - Annie Martin and Kyra Stephenson (2)
2. Edina - Trevor Aufderheide and Erin Sielaff (2)
2. Wayzata - Johnny Boyd and Hari Ganti (2)
2. Wayzata - Alex Bahls and Lina Li (2)
2. Wayzata - Luke Plutowski and Johanni Thunstrom (2)

LD Debaters
1. Blake - Erik Legried (3)
2. Apple Valley - Jon Slater (2)
2. Apple Valley - Sean Cheren (2)
2. Coon Rapids - Chelsea Brown (2)
2. Coon Rapids - Robyn Sellman (2)
2. Eagan - Michelle Wagner (2)
2. Lakeville South - Dylan Slinger (2)

PF Debaters
1. Eagan - Rachel Markon & Iaan Reynolds (3)
2. Blake - Mike Graham & Mik Kaminski (2)
2. Eagan - Weronika Janczuk & Haben Ghebregergish (2)
2. Eastview - Bryan Larson & Anthony Stagner (2)
2. Eastview - Sneha Somani & Michelle McGuire (2)
2. Forest Lake - Nick Bergantine (2)
2. Lakeville North - Karen Zhou & Steven Elliot (2)
2. SPA - Maddy Karon & Preston Morris (2)

Policy Schools
1. Wayzata (5)
2. Blake (3)
2. Bloomington (3)
2. Eagan (3)
2. Edina (3)

LD Schools
1. Blake (4)
1. Apple Valley (4)
1. Lakeville South (4)
1. Coon Rapids (4)
5. Eagan (3)

PF Schools
1. Eagan (5)
2. Eastview (4)
3. Blake (3)
3. SPA (3)
3. Forest Lake (3)

Overall School Totals
1. Eagan (11)
2. Blake (10)
3. Apple Valley (6)
3. Lakeville South (6)
5. Wayzata (5)
5. Coon Rapids (5)

Congrats to everyone who made the scoreboard this week, and stay tuned for next week's updates after Jefferson and St. Francis (which will include the first results for classic debate)