A skep trigger (short for "skepticism trigger") is a strategic argument in competitive debate—most common in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and occasionally in policy and parliamentary formats—where the debater argues that some premise, usually one the opponent has conceded or advanced, logically entails moral skepticism: the view that no action can be shown to be morally obligatory or impermissible.
The mechanic typically works in two parts. First, the debater establishes a trigger: a philosophical claim such as moral anti-realism, the is-ought gap, error theory (associated with J.L. Mackie's 1977 work Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong), or determinism undermining moral responsibility. Second, the debater pairs it with a presumption or permissibility argument explaining how the judge should vote once ethical evaluation collapses—often "presume negative" because the affirmative bears the burden of proof, or "permissibility affirms/negates" because absent moral facts, any action is permitted.
Skep triggers are controversial. Critics argue they encourage shallow engagement with metaethics, reward tricks over substantive clash, and exploit time-skew (a one-line trigger requires paragraphs to answer). Defenders contend they test whether opponents can defend their framework's foundations and that metaethical questions are genuinely prior to normative ones.
Common responses include:
- Permissibility/presumption flips, arguing the burden structure actually favors the other side.
- Confidence arguments, claiming that even under uncertainty, agents should act on the ethical theory with the highest credence (a strategy associated with debaters like Bob Overing and the "Premier Debate" coaching community).
- Theory shells arguing skep triggers are abusive or unpredictable.
- Substantive metaethical defenses of moral realism, often citing Derek Parfit's On What Matters (2011) or constructivist responses.
Many tournaments and circuits have informally discouraged skep through judge paradigms, though it remains a legitimate strategic option on the national circuit.
Example
At the 2019 Tournament of Champions in Lexington, Kentucky, several Lincoln-Douglas debaters ran determinism-based skep triggers paired with presumption arguments against affirmatives defending criminal justice reform.
Frequently asked questions
Not quite. Moral skepticism is the philosophical position; a skep trigger is the debate maneuver that uses that position—or a path to it—to win a round, usually paired with a presumption or permissibility claim.
Keep learning