Tu Quoque
Tu quoque, meaning "you too", answers a criticism by accusing the critic of the same fault. Debaters answer that the other side's inconsistency does not make the criticism untrue, and that the point still needs a response.
Tu Quoque 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 affirmative points out that the negative also used the phrase 'whack-a-mole' while critiquing it
The negative then answers by attacking a different word the affirmative used, calling it a homophobic term. This is a clear Tu Quoque: the reply defends nobody's position and only shifts attention to the other side's alleged wrongdoing. When an opponent answers 'you did it too,' name the deflection and steer the judge back to whether the original link or argument actually holds.
Example 2
The negative uses her cross-examination question about where the affirmative's shirt was made to argue that the affirmative is 'immoral herself' and so cannot hold the structural-violence framework. This is a tu quoque: the speaker's personal consistency has no bearing on whether nuclear possession is immoral. Students should spot this setup in cross-ex and answer that hypocrisy by the advocate does not falsify the argument, then send the judge back to the actual claim.
Example 3
When pressed with a slavery-versus-extinction hypothetical, the respondent deflects by saying the situation would never exist and asking the questioner the same thing about Kant. He then argues that Kant equally cannot resolve conflicting duties. Pointing out that a problem applies to both sides does not answer it, so this edges into tu quoque, even though the parity point has some value. In cross-ex, students should answer the hypothetical first and only then show that the objection applies to both frameworks.
Example 4: In crossfire, the questioner points out that the Cloud evidence dates from 2018 and asks how it applies in 2025
The respondent never defends the card. Instead he says the questioner's own link evidence is also from 2017 to 2018, so 'you're not in a position' to ask. That is a textbook tu quoque: the opponent's similar flaw doesn't fix your own. Students should spot this deflection and press again: 'Even if ours were old, that doesn't make yours current. Answer the question.'
Example 5
The affirmative attacks the topicality interpretation by noting that the Supreme Court has never defined what counts as constitutionally protected speech. The negative replies that the same problem applies to the 1AC, deflecting the objection back onto the opponent rather than answering it, which is a 'you too' move. The negative then partly recovers by pointing to Supreme Court precedent as a way to settle what is protected. Students should see that 'you have the same problem' does not resolve the objection. To counter it, ask the opponent to answer for their own interpretation first.
Example 6
Instead of defending the critique's own materiality, the speaker says the affirmative's justice framing is 'just as abstract as we are' and makes totalizing claims through fiat, 'which is just as bad as us.' This is a tu quoque: claiming the opponent shares a flaw does not answer the charge. Students who hear this should point out that the response concedes the flaw rather than refuting it.
Sources: every example links to the YouTube video of the championship debate it comes from, at the moment described.
All techniques and fallacies