Gambler's Fallacy
The gambler's fallacy believes that past random events change the odds of a future independent one, such as expecting a win because of earlier losses. Debaters answer by showing the events are independent, so earlier results do not affect the next.
Gambler's Fallacy as it appears in championship debate rounds. Each example below is a moment from a real round, with a note on why it illustrates the technique and how a debater can use it, or answer it.
Example 1
The speaker argues that because nuclear conflict hasn't already happened despite many close calls, it is now more likely, a 'foregone conclusion.' This commits the gambler's fallacy: treating the absence of past events as raising future probability, rather than pointing to causal trends. To counter it, demand a mechanism for rising risk and note that 74 years of non-use is equally consistent with deterrence working.
Sources: every example links to the YouTube video of the championship debate it comes from, at the moment described.
All techniques and fallacies