Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"

Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)

Revision as of 20:51, 29 December 2021

2,393 bytes added , 20:51, 29 December 2021

→‎Turns

Zsiegel

Content-Manager, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

1,166

edits

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ==== Link Turns ====
+Suppose that your opponent argues, "Passing the resolution will cause tensions to escalate between the U.S. and China, which is bad because that has the potential to turn into war." Note that this argument has a clear claim and impact, but is missing the warrant. For this example, assume that evidence was read backing the argument's claim.
+A link turn would argue the opposite of your opponent's claim, namely, that passing the resolution would cause tensions to decrease between the U.S. and China. Note that this is distinct from arguing that passing the resolution would NOT cause tensions to escalate. If you simply argued that passing the resolution would cause tensions to NOT escalate, that could mean the tensions would stay the same (which would be a defensive response). To make a link turn, you need to explicitly argue the opposite of what your opponent is saying.
+Even though this example is more oriented around a political issue, you can apply the idea of a link turn to any argument in debate. To make a link turn, you simply need to argue the opposite of your opponent's claim. If your opponent is claiming that pencils are better than pens, to link turn that argument, you would argue that pens are better than pencils.
 ==== Impact Turns ====
+An impact turn concedes that your opponent's claim is true but turns the impact of their argument. Let's return to the earlier example argument, "Passing the resolution will cause tensions to escalate between the U.S. and China, which is bad because that has the potential to turn into war."
+To impact turn this argument you would concede that the resolution causes tensions to escalate but argue that escalating tensions is actually good! To do this, you might argue that the potential of U.S. and China war is actually good (which might be harder to do), or you could alternatively argue that escalating tensions might avoid war and cause some other beneficial impact.
+Please note that you need to be careful with certain impact turns. Suppose that a debater argues that, "X policy will cause racist attitudes to increase across the country." A link turn to this argument would be that, "X policy actually will decrease racist attitudes across the country." This argument is clearly acceptable. An impact turn, however, would need to argue that "racist attitudes are actually good," which is clearly an unacceptable argument that cannot be run.
 === Layer ===