Evaluating Source Quality

The CRAAP Test for Debate Evidence

Librarians use the CRAAP test. Debaters should too:

Currency

When was it published? For fast-moving topics (tech, foreign policy), evidence from 2-3 years ago may already be outdated. For structural arguments (constitutional law, economic theory), older sources can still be valid.

Relevance

Does the source directly address your argument? A general article about climate change isn't evidence for a specific claim about sea level rise in Pacific Island nations.

Authority

Who wrote it? What are their credentials? A Stanford professor of economics writing about trade policy carries more weight than a staff writer at a news blog. Check: Do they have a PhD? Are they affiliated with a university or research institution?

Accuracy

Is it supported by data? Does it cite its own sources? Do other experts agree? Be wary of sources that make bold claims without evidence.

Purpose

Why was it written? An advocacy organization's report on gun control has a clear agenda — that doesn't make it useless, but you should acknowledge the perspective and look for corroboration from less interested parties.

Going Deeper

Debate competition rewards a specific kind of sustained intellectual work: the ability to research deeply, articulate clearly under time pressure, and respond strategically to opposing arguments. The concept covered here is one piece of that broader skill set.

Translating Theory to Practice

Three habits separate competitive debaters who improve consistently from those who plateau:

1. Card discipline: serious debaters maintain organized evidence files (in Verbatim, in a personal database, or on cloud-shared documents). Each piece of evidence needs source, date, qualifications, and the specific contextual argument it supports. Sloppy card management is the most common reason promising debaters stop improving.
2. Block writing: prepared blocks for common arguments save round time and improve consistency. The best debaters have 20-50 prepared blocks for their key arguments, each refined across multiple rounds.
3. Flowing skill: the ability to capture opposing arguments accurately and respond to them specifically requires deliberate practice. Watch top-bid debate rounds online and flow them yourself to compare with your own real-time flowing.

Source Quality

Debate evidence is only as strong as its sources. Build the habit of evaluating sources before reading them:

• Author credentials: who is the author, what are their qualifications?
• Publication venue: peer-reviewed journal, think-tank report, news outlet, advocacy publication?
• Recency: is this current enough for your topic?
• Bias indicators: what's the publication's funding source and editorial perspective?

The NSDA's prohibition on AI-generated evidence (March 2023 Competition Rules Board) makes source quality and verifiability more important than ever — you must be able to produce the original source if challenged.

Working With Your Coach and Partner

The best debaters are the ones who can be coached. Build the discipline of accepting criticism, asking targeted questions about your weakest rounds, and implementing specific improvements before the next tournament. For partner formats (PF, Worlds), develop explicit communication norms with your partner about division of labor, in-round signaling, and post-round debrief.