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 21:58, 3 January 2022
, 21:58, 3 January 2022→Offense vs Defense
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
=== Offense vs Defense === | === Offense vs Defense === | ||
In circuit LD, there is an important distinction between offensive and defensive arguments. Offensive arguments are a proactive reason why your argument is correct over your opponent's argument. Defensive arguments are just a reason why your opponent's argument is incorrect. Importantly, a defensive argument doesn't prove why your arguments are correct; they simply weaken your opponent's argument. | |||
Suppose the resolution is, "Resolved: Circuitdebater is a useful educational resource." An offensive argument for the affirmative would give a reason why Circuitdebater is educational; for example, it makes it easy for people to learn about new arguments. An offensive argument for the negative would give a reason why Circuitdebater is detrimental to one's education as a debater; for example it makes debaters lazy so they won't research their own arguments. A defensive argument for the negative, on the other hand, would argue why Circuitdebater is not educational; for example, Circuitdebater's website crashes all the time so debaters are never able to access its resources. Importantly, note that the defensive argument is not proving that Circuitdebater is actively educational; rather, it proves why Circuitdebater fails to provide education. | |||
One might wonder, what is the point of defensive arguments, anyway? It seems like offensive arguments are always better! Defensive arguments do have utility, though. Suppose that you and your opponent have two arguments that are directly contradicting each other. You could read a defensive argument against your opponent, thus weakening their argument. Then, your argument would win. For example, suppose you argue, "Umbrellas are better than raincoats because they block more water." Your opponent argues, "Raincoats are better than umbrellas because they don't get swept away by the wind." Without any other arguments, there would be no way to determine who is winning! However, you could make the defensive argument that, "Umbrellas don't get swept away by the wind that often, only on windy days!" In this case, you could win this debate. | |||
=== Weighing === | |||
Returning to the previous example, there are more ways than simply applying defensive arguments to win when two arguments contradict each other. | |||
=== Tech over Truth === | === Tech over Truth === | ||