辩论赛中什么样的证据是好证据？

很多人觉得“证据”是法律上的术语，在生活中不常用到，因而不大重视。但实际上，大到公司之间的合作小到人与人之间的交流

都需要有证据，让自己的语言更有力量！

在辩论中更是如此！合理使用证据可以帮助你快速说服评委赢得Ta的认同，同时赢得比赛的胜利！

 今天要和辩手们分享的就是： Writing Strong Warrants: Evidence 

 #1   、When to use evidence？ 

 什么时候使用证据？

If you say the sky is green, and your opponent says the sky is blue, even if you backup your claim with what seems like sound reasoning, it might still not be believed by the judge. Citing a qualified author at the right moment, or referencing a study when rebutting a point by your opponents can often make the difference between winning and losing a debate.

如果你说天空是绿色的，而你对手说天空是蓝色的，即使你的论点听起来有点道理可能裁判也不会相信。在合适的时间引用一个有说服力的人，或在反驳对手观点时引用权威性研究结果，有时能够决定一场辩论的胜负。

This doesn’t mean that you have to use a piece of evidence in every argument you make. But as long as what you say is a piece of common knowledge, or your point is backed up by sound logic, evidence is not always necessary. 

但这并不意味着每个论述都要使用证据。如果你所表述的是常识或你的观点有着缜密的逻辑支持，这时证据不一定是必须的。

举个例子

For example if I claim that “Russia and America often disagree about international issues,” that is something that anyone who reads a newspaper would know, so I don’t need evidence. And based on that I use analysis to make predictions about how Russia and America would behave in the security council.

But often facts on their own or someone's personal opnion is not enough to win a debate and could be interpreted in a variety of different ways.

因为人们对同一事实和观点可能有着不同的理解方式，所以通常关于个人的情况或某人的个人的观点是不足以赢得一场辩论的。

举个例子

For example if I argue that, based on my analysis above, the UN Security Council can never get anything done because Russia and China would not agree. Then my opponent could argue that actually they agree on a lot of things. 

So being able to tell the judge about a piece of evidence from a qualified source could help persuade them. For example, evidence of a time when Russia and America disagreed and it has caused problems. Or a report from an expert on the UN on how the security council works in practice.

如果你能向裁判提供有效的信息来源，这会帮助你更好地说服裁判。例如，你可以提供俄罗斯和中国对某项决议投反对票并导致了一定后果的证据，或引用联合国问题研究专家对于安理会如何运转的报道。

 #2   、 What is good evidence？  什么样的才是好证据？

The evidence you use should be：Fairly recent; from a qualified or relevant source; and sound in its reasoning.

你所使用的证据应是：近期的、来源可靠的、与之相关的、听起来较为合理的。

1、Date:  If the research you are citing is ten or twenty years old, many things will have changed so it won’t be very accurate. This varies a little depending on the topic. An article written last year about the Syrian civil war will probably be very out of date, but one on American infrastructure investment is probably still valuable. 

日期：如果你引用的研究是10或20年前的，在此期间很多事情已经发生了变化，可能引用的证据已经不准确了。话题不同可能情况也有变化。去年关于叙利亚内战的文章可能已经不符合当下的实情，但如果是一年前发表的关于美国基础设施投资的文章，可能还具有比较大的参考价值。

2、Credible sources:  Avoid websites like wikipedia or Baidu Baike as these encyclopedias can be edited by just about anyone, whether they are qualified or not. So although they are often accurate it is not guaranteed. Good sources are often newspapers or magazines, academic publications or information from organisations that do research into relevant issues. 

可靠信息：避免使用维基百科或百度百科等此类网站，因为这些网站人人都可以编辑。虽然其中大部分信息是准确的，但并不能得到百分之百保障。好的信息来源包括报纸、杂志、学术文章或研究机构发布的相关调研等。

3、Relevant sources:  Stephen Hawking is a great physicist, but his opinions on history, politics or economics aren’t necessarily going to be better than an average person’s. The same is true for publications. Many have specialist areas of expertise, but won’t be as good in other areas.

相关信息：霍金虽然是一个优秀的物理学家，但他在历史、政治或经济学上的观点可能不会比普通人更具参考价值。同样，很多出版物在某一领域非常专业，但在其他领域就表现平平。

4、Reasoning: Just because a source is generally good doesn’t mean it is right about everything. Even smart people and credible publications make mistakes. The Cato institute believes “the UN is bad because it limits individual nations economic sovereignty,” is better than “The Cato institute believes the UN is bad because it's secretly plotting world domination.” It is always more convincing to explain the reasons behind a source’s conclusion than to simply quote it.

合理性：一个信息来源的可信度可能总体水平很高，但不意味着它所有的信息都是正确的，聪明人和权威的出版物也会犯错误。卡托研究所认为“联合国不好是因为它限制了各国作为独立国家的经济主权”比“卡托研究所认为联合国不好是因为联合国正在秘密谋划统治全球”要好。通常对信息来源的结论加以解释比直接引用这一信息要更具说服性。