Evaluating Source Quality
Not all sources deserve equal weight in a BQ round, and a good judge can be persuaded by clear explanations of why your source is more credible. You will be able to rank sources by quality and explain why in a speech.
Markers of Quality
Peer review, the author's relevant expertise, publication in a recognized academic journal or university press, and replication by other researchers all raise a source's credibility. A tenured philosophy professor's peer-reviewed article on personal identity outweighs a popular magazine article summarizing the same topic secondhand.
Falsifiability as a Quality Marker for Scientific Claims
A scientific claim should be falsifiable — there must be some possible observation that would count against it — and claims that are unfalsifiable, no matter how scientific-sounding, deserve less evidentiary weight in a round. If a theory is compatible with literally any possible result, it cannot be empirically tested and should be treated more like a philosophical assumption than confirmed science.
In cross-examination, a Negative debater is asked to defend a claim originally sourced from a pop-science blog.
The Affirmative asks: 'Is your source peer-reviewed, and can you name the original researcher it's based on?' When the Negative cannot answer, the Affirmative uses their next speech to explicitly compare it against their own peer-reviewed journal citation, telling the judge directly: 'Weigh our peer-reviewed neuroscience study over their secondhand blog summary.'
1. Which of these most strongly signals a high-quality academic source?
Answer all 1 to check.
Explicitly compare source quality out loud in speeches — peer review, expertise, and falsifiability are concrete standards a lay judge can understand.