Tricks and Spikes

The Tricks Debate Tradition

Tricks — also called spikes, a prioris, or tricky arguments — are a controversial but widespread feature of competitive LD, particularly on the national circuit. A trick is a brief, often buried argument designed to win the round if the opponent fails to respond to it. The strategy relies on information asymmetry: the debater running tricks knows exactly which arguments matter, while the opponent has to figure out which of many small arguments are actually dangerous.

Common tricks include: presuppositional arguments ('you must presuppose free will to make any argument, and free will requires affirming the resolution'), definitional tricks ('the resolution says ought, which means it's only asking about ideal obligations, not practical ones'), and logical tricks ('the resolution is a conditional statement, and a conditional with a false antecedent is vacuously true'). Each of these arguments takes only 10-15 seconds to read but requires substantial time to refute.

The ethical status of tricks is hotly debated. Critics argue they reduce debate to a game of gotcha rather than genuine philosophical engagement. Defenders argue they test careful listening, line-by-line refutation skills, and philosophical sophistication. Your stance on tricks may vary, but you absolutely need to know how they work — both to use them and to beat them.

Common Spikes and How They Work

A spike is typically placed in the framework section of a case, disguised as a philosophical premise. It looks innocent but generates a winning ballot if conceded. Here are the most common spikes you'll encounter:

The 'ought means probability' spike: 'The resolution says ought, which indicates probability, not obligation. I only need to show my position is more likely correct, not that it's certainly correct.' This lowers the affirmative's burden of proof.

The 'permissibility trigger': 'If neither side proves their framework, the judge should default to permissibility — actions are permissible unless proven otherwise. Since the resolution asks whether X ought to be done, permissibility affirms/negates.' This creates a win condition from framework indeterminacy.

The 'truth-testing' spike: 'LD is about testing the truth of the resolution, not comparing policy options. I only need to prove one sufficient condition for the resolution to be true.' This lets you win on a single argument rather than needing to outweigh on the whole case.

The 'skep trigger': 'If moral skepticism is true and no moral framework can be justified, the resolution cannot be affirmed, so you negate.' This creates a neg win condition from philosophical uncertainty.