Tricks Debate

Tricks debate is a strategic style associated primarily with high school Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate in the United States, though analogous tactics appear in college policy and parliamentary formats. Rather than developing extended substantive positions on the resolution, tricks debaters deploy a cluster of short, often a priori arguments intended to generate auto-wins if the opponent fails to answer them precisely.

Typical tricks include:

• A priori arguments: claims that the affirmative or negative wins by definition before any substantive weighing, such as truth-testing paradigms or "the resolution is necessarily true/false."
• Skepticism (skep): moral skepticism triggers arguing that, absent a working ethical framework, the judge must default a particular way (often negative presumption).
• Paradoxes: liar paradoxes, sorites, or Curry's paradox deployed to collapse the opponent's framework.
• Theory spikes: pre-emptive procedural objections (e.g., "must defend the whole resolution," "no RVIs") embedded in the underview or framework.
• Triggers: conditional arguments that activate only if the opponent makes a specific move, such as conceding a definition.

The style is controversial. Supporters argue it rewards technical precision, careful flowing, and analytic philosophy literacy. Critics — including many coaches, the NSDA's evolving guidance, and circuit judges who write "no tricks" in paradigms — argue it produces unintelligible rounds, disadvantages novices and under-resourced programs, and substitutes gotcha logic for engagement with real-world topics. Many tournaments and judges now explicitly restrict frivolous theory and a priori arguments through paradigm preferences rather than formal rules.

Tricks debate sits on one axis of LD's broader stylistic spectrum, alongside traditional, policy/LARP, kritikal (K), and phil/framework debate. Strategic crossover is common: many top circuit debaters carry a small "tricks" file as an off-case option even when their primary style is substantive.