While the previous two installments of the “Bad Cards” series highlighted popular but low-quality impact cards, this is not the only way that awful evidence is used in high school debates. In the third edition of the series, the issue is not the credibility of the evidence’s author or the veracity of its content so much as the context in which it was written—a blog about a high school debate topic written by a part-time coach and former debater whose goal was to improve the quality of debates about the legal system, not produce evidence to be cited in contest rounds. Debaters should discontinue their use of this evidence—the “Harrison ‘05/’06” cards—on the grounds of both fairness and education.
Category Archives: Bad Cards
Bad Cards #2: The "Corsi '5" Terrorism Impact
Many of the pieces of evidence that students frequently read in debates are unquestionably terrible. Often, the desire to bolster an impact’s magnitude and raise it to extinction-level leads debaters to rely on evidence with a host of problems including but not limited to:
- evidence used to advance arguments outside its intended context;
- evidence citing unqualified, (functionally) anonymous, or even nefarious authors;
- evidence culled from (typically internet or tabloid) sources that are at best unedited and at worst contemptible;
- evidence advancing hyperbolic arguments supported by vitriolic and/or over-the-top language;
- evidence so old that it no longer makes sense given subsequent events or changes in the topic it discusses; and
- evidence which must be liberally interpreted in order for it to be used to support the desired conclusion.
The “Bad Cards” series is an attempt to highlight some of the most egregious examples of poor-quality evidence that is nonetheless commonplace in high school policy debates. It is not the author’s intention to “scold” or “shame” those who have read these pieces of evidence in the past or who will do so in the future. Instead, it is an attempt to influence the way that evidence is selected for inclusion in debate arguments by arming opposing students with the tools they need to defeat bad cards.
OVERVIEW
A common terminal impact to terrorism advantages and disadvantages, the Corsi ‘5 card is used to support the claim that terrorism is an existential threat to humanity. There are many problems with this so-called “evidence,” but the bottom line is this: it outlines a fictional account of a specific sequence of events dreamed up by a discredited and indeed contemptible author that—even if true—is not relevant in the vast majority of debates in which it is deployed.
Bad Cards #1: The “South China Morning Post ‘96” Disease Impact
Many of the pieces of evidence that students frequently read in debates are unquestionably terrible. Often, the desire to bolster an impact’s magnitude and raise it to extinction-level leads debaters to rely on evidence with a host of problems including but not limited to:
- evidence used to advance arguments outside its intended context;
- evidence citing unqualified, (functionally) anonymous, or even nefarious authors;
- evidence culled from (typically internet or tabloid) sources that are at best unedited and at worst contemptible;
- evidence advancing hyperbolic arguments supported by vitriolic and/or over-the-top language;
- evidence so old that it no longer makes sense given subsequent events or changes in the topic it discusses; and
- evidence which must be liberally interpreted in order for it to be used to support the desired conclusion.
The “Bad Cards” series is an attempt to highlight some of the most egregious examples of poor-quality evidence that is nonetheless commonplace in high school policy debates. It is not the author’s intention to “scold” or “shame” those who have read these pieces of evidence in the past or who will do so in the future. Instead, it is an attempt to influence the way that evidence is selected for inclusion in debate arguments by arming opposing students with the tools they need to defeat bad cards.