Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)

Revision as of 15:07, 7 January 2022

123 bytes added ,  15:07, 7 January 2022
→‎Layer
Line 71: Line 71:
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.
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 ===
=== Layer ===
This section is a work in progress.
In this section, we start to deviate more from traditional LD debate and make our way into circuit LD. In traditional LD, the role of the affirmative and negative are typically clearly defined. The affirmative must affirm the resolution by proving why it is good, and the negative must negate the resolution by proving why it is bad. There is only one way for the affirmative to win, and one way for the negative to win, that is, by proving their respective sides, ''substantively''. Thus, "substance", or the substantive debate whether the resolution is a good or bad idea, would be considered a layer. In traditional LD debate, there is typically only one layer in the debate: substance.  
In this section, we start to deviate more from traditional LD debate and make our way into circuit LD. In traditional LD, the role of the affirmative and negative are typically clearly defined. The affirmative must affirm the resolution by proving why it is good, and the negative must negate the resolution by proving why it is bad. There is only one way for the affirmative to win, and one way for the negative to win, that is, by proving their respective sides, ''substantively''. Thus, "substance", or the substantive debate whether the resolution is a good or bad idea, would be considered a layer, . In traditional LD debate, there are typically only one layers in the debate, substance.
 
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, debaters are not restricted to only reading one layer.  
In circuit LD, however, there are more ways to win the round, and as such, more layers are introduced. One way to win a circuit LD round is to prove that your opponent is engaging in unfair practices in the round and should lose for doing so. These types of arguments are called [[Theory|theory shells]]. If the debater reading theory successfully proves the abuse, they would win the round, causing their opponent to lose. Theory is considered a different layer than substance, since, it provides debaters a path to win the round that is not reliant on substantively winning the debate. That is, even if a debater is losing the debate on the substance layer but winning the debate on the theory layer, they could still win the round; this is because theory is typically considered to be a "higher layer" than substance.
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. See below for a table of common layers in debate.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Debate Layers
!Layer
!Description
!Ordering
|-
|[[Theory]]
|Proving your opponent should lose the round because they are engaging in unfair or uneducational practices.
|Considered a higher layer than substance but debated whether it should come before kritiks.
|-
|[[Kritiks]]
|Proving your opponent should lose the round by criticizing their orientation towards some construct.
|Considered a higher layer than substance but debated whether it should come before theory.
|-
|Substance
|Winning the round by arguing for your side of the resolution, either through [[policy]] or [[Philosophy|philosophy.]]
|Considered the lowest layer of the debate round. However, some debaters argue that [[philosophy]] operates on the same level as [[kritiks]].
|}
 
==== "Offs" ====
This section is a work in progress.


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.
=== Role of the Ballot ===
=== Role of the Ballot ===
The role of the ballot establishes the conditions under which the judge ought to vote for you. In traditional LD, although not explicitly stated, the role of the ballot might be to vote for the debater who proves whether the resolution is morally desirable or not. In circuit LD, however, there are many more potential roles of the ballots which extend beyond substantively proving the resolution true or false.  
The role of the ballot establishes the conditions under which the judge ought to vote for you. In traditional LD, although not explicitly stated, the role of the ballot might be to vote for the debater who proves whether the resolution is morally desirable or not. In circuit LD, however, there are many more potential roles of the ballots which extend beyond substantively proving the resolution true or false.  
Retrieved from "https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/2036"

Navigation menu