1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)
Revision as of 21:13, 29 December 2021
, 21:13, 29 December 2021→Layer
(→Layer) |
(→Layer) |
||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
A layer, simply put, could be defined as a grouping of similar arguments that provide a path for one debater to win the round. | A layer, simply put, could be defined as a grouping of similar arguments that provide a path for one debater to win the round. | ||
In circuit LD, however, there are more ways to win the round, and as such, more layers are introduced. While in traditional LD, the negative has to defend the status quo, in circuit LD, the negative has the option of running a [[Counterplans|counterplan]]. For instance, if the resolution was, "Resolved: States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," the negative debater might argue, "Counterplan: States except for the United States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons." Clearly, the negative is not defending the status quo. At the same time, however, the negative is not defending the affirmative's position, since the affirmative would advocate for the US also banning lethal autonomous weapons. The negative, as such, has taken up a counter-advocacy, neither defending the status quo nor the affirmative's position. This counterplan would be considered a layer of the debate because if the negative wins their counterplan, they could win the round. In fact, the negative could read as many counterplans as they desire in the same round, so long as they collapse to one in their 2NR. Therefore, | In circuit LD, however, there are more ways to win the round, and as such, more layers are introduced. While in traditional LD, the negative has to defend the status quo, in circuit LD, the negative has the option of running a [[Counterplans|counterplan]]. For instance, if the resolution was, "Resolved: States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," the negative debater might argue, "Counterplan: States except for the United States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons." Clearly, the negative is not defending the status quo. At the same time, however, the negative is not defending the affirmative's position, since the affirmative would advocate for the US also banning lethal autonomous weapons. The negative, as such, has taken up a counter-advocacy, neither defending the status quo nor the affirmative's position. This counterplan would be considered a layer of the debate because if the negative wins their counterplan, they could win the round. In fact, the negative could read as many counterplans as they desire in the same round, so long as they collapse to one in their 2NR. Therefore, debaters are not restricted to only reading one layer. | ||
Another common layer in debate is a [[Theory|theory shell]]. In a theory shell, one debater might argue that the other debater was being unfair in the round. If the debater reading theory successfully proves the abuse, they would win the round, causing their opponent to lose. A theory shell would be considered a layer, since, it provides one debater a path to win the round. This illustrates the important point that all layers are not created equal. Suppose that the affirmative debater is winning their case that "States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons." But further suppose that the negative is winning that the affirmative was unfair in the round because they violated prep time by taking 6 minutes of prep (a silly example). Since theory is considered to be a "higher layer" than substance, the negative debater would win the round, even though they are losing on the substance level. A large component about progressive debate is arguing about which layers in the round should be evaluated first. | Another common layer in debate is a [[Theory|theory shell]]. In a theory shell, one debater might argue that the other debater was being unfair in the round. If the debater reading theory successfully proves the abuse, they would win the round, causing their opponent to lose. A theory shell would be considered a layer, since, it provides one debater a path to win the round. This illustrates the important point that all layers are not created equal. Suppose that the affirmative debater is winning their case that "States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons." But further suppose that the negative is winning that the affirmative was unfair in the round because they violated prep time by taking 6 minutes of prep (a silly example). Since theory is considered to be a "higher layer" than substance, the negative debater would win the round, even though they are losing on the substance level. A large component about progressive debate is arguing about which layers in the round should be evaluated first. | ||