Indicting Ev/Ev Comparison

Evidence Comparison!

By Rian Chadha

What is it? 

• Evidence comparison is giving the judge reasons to prefer the cards you read over your opponents' cards that make opposite claims 

• Explain why your evidence and studies are more relevant or important to the outcome of the round 

Why do it? 

• Break the clash! If your evidence is better, then the judge will look there first 

• Really helpful in close rounds because it's just a little extra reason why the judge should prefer you 

• Doesn’t take much time to do, and it can then win you the round. 

Ways to compare evidence 

1. Date- your evidence is newer, which means it's more relevant or takes into account more recent data. This means the evidence is better. 

   1. Example- Russian actor analysis ev from 2019 would be worse than ev from 2024 because the newer ev takes the Ukraine war into account

2. Author qualifications- my author is qualified to talk about the issues they are talking about, while my opponent's author is just a journalist or blogger, etc. 

   1. Example- your author is a doctor with a tested study who has been writing about your topic for years, while your opponent’s author is a new blogger just writing their unofficial opinion on the topic. 

3. Author/source history or jobs- specific issues with the author or the website that they cite that would make them unreliable on a topic. Things like your authors being propagandists, war hawks, or being paid off by a company 

   1. Example- O’Toole evidence on the High Speed Rail topic 

Breaking the Clash! 

For lazy tech judges, good ev comparison is a reason they can look to your case before any of your opponent’s arguments. 

• It doesn’t take much effort for a judge to understand, so it's really easy to agree with an ev comparison and use that as a simple reason to vote for you! 

It gives the judge a reason to prefer evidence that says the exact opposite of each other (defensive vs offensive realist ev) because your study is better

• An easy way to break the clash on the quick points that win the round. If the round is going to be decided by competing evidence claims, then evidence comparison is NEEDED. 

Sometimes, if you make the evidence issues a big enough deal in the round, then you can make it a terminal defense and win the round off of it. 

• If your opponents' link evidence is terrible, then you can use that fact to argue that they have no link 

On the lay 

• Making evidence comparison arguments on the lay is always a good idea, but usually has a much smaller effect on the round. 

• Things like the date and type of a study are harder to explain the importance of to a lay judge, so they can usually understand why it's bad for your opponents but won’t vote on it. 

• What works really well on the lay is author qualifications! Really easy to explain, and if you can make it comparative and say that your opponent’s authors are just random people, then you end up looking really good to the judge. 

Evidence challenges 

• What is it? 

  • Evidence challenges are a slight variation of evidence comparison. 

  • You point out that your opponent's evidence violates the rules of the tournament 

  • Examples of common rules- strawman and clipping

• Why do it? 

  • If and only if you stake the round on it and if you are 100% right about your claim, it is an 100% guarantee of winning you the round with certain judges. 

  • Can be a last-ditch effort if you are losing, but I would recommend against it. 

When and how to stake a round on an evidence challenge

• When? 

  • The correct judge or panel- most tech judges will evaluate them, but read paradigms. It could potentially work on the lay, but they will be confused at the beginning. 

• How? 

  • KNOW THE TOURNAMENT RULES!!! Most tournaments default to NSDA rules but if they do they will tell you somewhere (TFA). 

  • Click through the tournament documents linked on the side of tabroom to find the rules. 

  • If you are reading it- be specific about what rule they are violating, what ev it is, and what part of the ev is bad. Be ready to provide the tournament rules to the judges and show the parts of the ev that are bad. 

  • Some rules require your opponents to know that they are breaking the rules (strawman) so you can set it up in crossfire. 

  • If you have it read on you- defend yourself!