Some comparison matter much more than normal, especially when there are extremely minor differences, however, evidence comparison is almost always a tie breaker. Probability is a major tiebreaker, the same thing is important for evidence, from quality, tagging, and presentation. You need to win that your evidence is higher quality
Sometimes people are paid to write evidence from think tanks
DO NOT over extend on this, winning that an author is unqualified does nothing if you don’t have another piece of evidence that is more qualified.
When authors work for a specific post or company
Fox news is a great example of this, because the publisher they work for necessitates a writing style so all article s are written in a similar way
Basically never present, except for this topic. It’s when someone drums up evidence based on what they think.
Conservatives often think based on fiscal austerity policies, aka, Reaganomics.
<aside> <img src="/icons/stars_purple.svg" alt="/icons/stars_purple.svg" width="40px" /> It’s crucial in debate to debate both sides, even if we disagree with political affiliations and ideas
</aside>
Opinions on policies change really quickly depending on what is out there, so it’s important to check your dates, in other cases it depends on how old it is. A 10 year gap is generally enough to outdated old research.
If one person says climate change is not real compared to a thousand who do, it’s important to keep this in mind and note. If not many people write on a topic, you may share cards with the other team.
How specific is this card, and how relevant is it to the debate at hand? Some cards are outdated, or have information that is unhelpful for the debate.