Circuit Debater LD

Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"

Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)

Revision as of 21:22, 9 January 2022

541 bytes added ,  21:22, 9 January 2022
→‎Weighing
(→‎Community Norms: evidence ethics)
Line 139: Line 139:
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.
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 ===
=== Weighing ===
This section is a work in progress.
Weighing is the process in which you compare two arguments and attempt to show that one is stronger than the other. In debate, there are often contradicting arguments, and without weighing, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for the judge to know which argument to prioritize. 
Returning to the previous example, there are more ways than simply applying defensive arguments to win when two arguments contradict each other.  
 
There are many different ways to compare, or weigh between two different arguments. You can use as many weighing mechanisms as you would like when comparing two arguments. The most common weighing mechanisms are outlined in the table below. 
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+Weighing Mechanisms
|+Weighing Mechanisms
Line 148: Line 149:
|-
|-
|Magnitude
|Magnitude
|How large of an impact your argument has
|The severity of your impact
|The pain of breaking your arm outweighs the pain of a papercut on magnitude since breaking your arm will hurt considerably more.
|
|-
|-
|Scope
|Scope
|How many people your argument effects
|The number of people your impact will affect
|Nuclear warfare outweighs conventional warfare on scope since nuclear warfare kills more people.
|
|-
|-
|Probability
|Probability
|The probability that your argument is true
|The probability your impact will be true
|
|
|-
|-
|Timeframe
|Timeframe
|How long until your argument will be relevant
|The amount of time it will take until your impact becomes relevant
|
|
|-
|-
|Duration
|Duration
|How long your argument will take place for
|The amount of time your impact will take place for
|
|-
|Reversibility
|The difficulty of reversing the effects of your impact
|
|-
|Strength of Link
|The amount of defense that has been placed against your impact
|
|
|}
|}
==== Meta-Weighing ====
Sometimes, Argument <math>A</math> might outweigh Argument <math>B</math> under one weighing criterion, but Argument <math>B</math> might outweigh Argument <math>A</math> under a different criterion. For example,
=== Tech over Truth ===
=== Tech over Truth ===
One large distinction between traditional and circuit LD is the concept of "tech over truth." In traditional LD, many judges vote for the debater who they are most convinced by the end of the debate. Though many traditional LD judges flow, they take into account the ethos of arguments and the extent to which they believe them. Traditional LD judges might reject arguments that they deem silly even if there is no explicit rebuttal to these arguments. Traditional LD judges are said to vote on the "truth" value of arguments, since they take into account how "true" their beliefs are for the arguments they are voting for.  
One large distinction between traditional and circuit LD is the concept of "tech over truth." In traditional LD, many judges vote for the debater who they are most convinced by the end of the debate. Though many traditional LD judges flow, they take into account the ethos of arguments and the extent to which they believe them. Traditional LD judges might reject arguments that they deem silly even if there is no explicit rebuttal to these arguments. Traditional LD judges are said to vote on the "truth" value of arguments, since they take into account how "true" their beliefs are for the arguments they are voting for.  
Line 182: Line 195:


There are some exceptions to the practice worth noting. Some debaters do not disclose positions or performances that are of a personal nature to them. Other debaters do not disclose because their school forbids them to disclose. Also, novices are generally not expected to disclose. These debaters are still at risk of having disclosure theory ran at them; however, they might receive more sympathy from their opponents and judges.
There are some exceptions to the practice worth noting. Some debaters do not disclose positions or performances that are of a personal nature to them. Other debaters do not disclose because their school forbids them to disclose. Also, novices are generally not expected to disclose. These debaters are still at risk of having disclosure theory ran at them; however, they might receive more sympathy from their opponents and judges.
=== Evidence and Evidence Ethics ===
=== Evidence and Evidence Ethics ===
Because most circuit LD rounds require a lot of evidence, it is important to make sure your evidence is accurate and cited properly. There is generally a norm in the community for what constitutes a piece of evidence that is cited "correctly." When citing evidence, debaters usually have a short summary of the evidence called the "tag" (which they write themselves); the source; and finally the card (which is the name for the body of evidence), which is highlighted and underlined in certain places in order to emphasize its important parts.
Because most circuit LD rounds require a lot of evidence, it is important to make sure your evidence is accurate and cited properly. There is generally a norm in the community for what constitutes a piece of evidence that is cited "correctly." When citing evidence, debaters usually have a short summary of the evidence called the "tag" (which they write themselves); the source; and finally the card (which is the name for the body of evidence), which is highlighted and underlined in certain places in order to emphasize its important parts.
Line 191: Line 203:


Take the following example of a card that is egregiously miscut: "example."
Take the following example of a card that is egregiously miscut: "example."
==== Evidence Ethics: Stakes vs Theory ====
==== Evidence Ethics: Stakes vs Theory ====
When you notice miscut evidence, there are two things you can do: you can stake the round or run theory on them.  
When you notice miscut evidence, there are two things you can do: you can stake the round or run theory on them.  
Line 204: Line 215:


Before challenging the round or running evidence ethics theory, '''check your judge’s paradigm'''. Different judges will have different thresholds for voting on evidence ethics violations: some are completely unwilling to vote on it while others will vote on marginal abuse. There is no point in running a challenge if the judge will not vote on it. If you are unsure of their stance on evidence, ask them!
Before challenging the round or running evidence ethics theory, '''check your judge’s paradigm'''. Different judges will have different thresholds for voting on evidence ethics violations: some are completely unwilling to vote on it while others will vote on marginal abuse. There is no point in running a challenge if the judge will not vote on it. If you are unsure of their stance on evidence, ask them!
=== Spreading ===
=== Spreading ===
Another norm in circuit LD is spreading, or, speed reading. Experienced debaters can typically read their cases upwards of 300 words per minute. Since speeches are limited in time, by spreading, debaters can fit more arguments into their speeches, making responding more difficult. Although spreading might sound incomprehensible to you at first, with enough practice, you will learn to understand spreading and even be able to spread on your own!
Another norm in circuit LD is spreading, or, speed reading. Experienced debaters can typically read their cases upwards of 300 words per minute. Since speeches are limited in time, by spreading, debaters can fit more arguments into their speeches, making responding more difficult. Although spreading might sound incomprehensible to you at first, with enough practice, you will learn to understand spreading and even be able to spread on your own!
Retrieved from "https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/2051"