You should write weird/whacky/stupid cases for both sides.
Aff cases should be 3 minutes long, and neg cases should be 1.5–2 minutes.
Normal cases are not allowed.
You will not be reading your own cases. How well your cases do in the tournament will decide seeding, so you want your cases to do well.
Cases are due beforehand and will be reviewed for excess sanity and lack of quality.
Your cases should have evidence, and the evidence may not be made up. It must also follow normal evidence ethics. Highly recommend citing sources like the Onion, comedians, fictional books, etc. You just need to find someone else to say idiotic stuff for you.
Don’t make your case offensive. If you’re unsure if you can run something, ask me first.
Most cases will be based on true evidence pieced together in entertaining ways. Use real scientific articles, news articles, etc. True things can lead to really funny conclusions.
You need cards that follow normal evidence ethics rules—no misleading card cutting and no making up evidence.
All sources are equally credible
Pretend all articles are published by Harvard and news articles are from the Associated Press, and the authors are all experts in the field. Experts can be wrong, so criticize sources in the same way you would if experts were the authors.
Examples of legitimate sources: folktales, fictional stories, religious texts, satire, social media, quacks, government propaganda, weird philosophers, etc.
Getting people on the team or outside of the team to say what you want is not legitimate.
Like in normal LD, private sources cannot be used (ex. private conversations). All evidence must be accessible to the entire team.
Note that our internal Slack or Google Drive are fair game as “public” sources.
Freeze on sources modifiable by the public or anyone on the team:
Quotes on Slack or from any team-generated material must have been created on or before November 20th.
For sources like wikis or Urban Dictionary, it is forbidden to make changes to a page or to have someone else make changes to a page in order to cite it.
Examples of acceptable and unacceptable evidence arguments:
ACCEPTABLE: Questioning methodology or “lack of evidence”
Ex. My opponent's point is supported by a singular example. My evidence is from Jack and the Beanstalk. This story has been around far longer than almost all scientific research. It has stood the test of time. This is the closest thing to historical consensus that we have. As such, we can clearly conclude that giants exist.
UNACCEPTABLE: Questioning the credibility of the source
Ex. Prefer my definition from Merriam Webster over my opponent’s from Urban Dictionary because Urban Dictionary isn’t credible.
ACCEPTABLE: Explaining why one source should be used over another
Ex. Empirically, cases on our team cite Merriam Webster far more frequently than Urban Dictionary. This indicates consensus on our team. As such, prefer my definition from Merriam Webster over the definition from Urban Dictionary.
UNACCEPTABLE: Discounting evidence based on the author
Ex. Don’t believe my opponent’s evidence from George Santos because he is a known liar.
ACCEPTABLE: Weighing evidence quality
Ex. I give you examples of this occurring while my opponent only has the words of one person.