Difference between revisions of "Truth Testing"

← Older edit

Truth Testing (view source)

Revision as of 20:06, 18 January 2022

167 bytes removed , 20:06, 18 January 2022

no edit summary

Zsiegel

Content-Manager, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

1,166

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Overview ==
-Truth testing is a role of the ballot, where the winner of the round is determined whoever best proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. The aff burden is to prove the resolution semantically true and the neg burden is to deny that premise. Truth testing can be a powerful tool against theoretical and critical arguments, as it excludes all offense that doesn't fit under the resolution. Furthermore, it opens the door to a whole host of tricks due to proving the truth of the resolution being the only objective in the round; silly arguments can now be viable as long as they work under truth testing.
+Truth testing is a role of the ballot that says the judge should vote for the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. The aff burden is to prove the resolution true, and the neg burden is to prove the resolution false.
+Truth testing is often combined with a philosophical framework to prove the resolution true or false. Since many resolutions have the word "ought," debaters can prove the truth or falsity of the resolution by proving there exists a moral obligation or prohibition upon doing the resolution. That is, if we have a moral obligation to do the resolution, then it is proven true that we ought to do the resolution, or vice-versa.
+Truth testing is also commonly paired with [[tricks]]. Some tricks, like [[A Prioris|a prioris]], function by proving that the resolution is inherently a true or false statement due to some logical or semantical property of the wording of the resolution. Other tricks, like [[Moral Skepticism|moral skepticism]], prove it is impossible to generate moral obligations, so the "ought" statement could never be proven true.
+Finally, truth testing can also be useful against [[Theory|theoretical]] or [[Kritiks|critical arguments]], as truth testing would exclude all offense that doesn't directly prove the resolution true or false.
+== Common Justifications ==
+Here are some common justifications for truth testing.
-== Common Arguments ==
 ''Jurisdictional'' justifications for truth testing describe the way in which the judge determines the winner of the round. The judge only has the power to vote for the better debater because the ballot is specifically asking if the resolution is true or false in the given round which means the ballot is inherently asking for the truth or falsity of the resolution.
@@ Line 12: / Line 19: @@
 ''Resolvability'' justifications portray truth and falsity as a binary system of evaluating arguments in the round which makes it the most resolvable. Other role of the ballots would fail in truth testing's stead because it leaves it up to the judge (and perhaps their personal biases) to resolve the round.
+== Responses ==
+First, it is worth noting that you might not need to respond to truth testing. If you are reading a different philosophical framework that proves the resolution true or false, including [[utilitarianism]], you could concede truth testing and argue that your framework proves the resolution true or false, too. However, if you opponent is leveraging truth testing to gain access to many tricks, it still might be worth contesting truth testing and going for an alternative role of the ballot, such as [[comparative worlds]].
-== Implications ==
+The most effective way to respond to truth testing, like any other role of the ballot, is to line-by-line the justifications and leverage your own role of the ballot.
-Some common implications for truth testing are "take-outs"
-For example, a common implication is that truth testing takes out theory because it doesn't prove the truth or falsity of the resolution. This implication can also be applied to kritiks and counterplans (though it is more debatable for counterplans)  because they don't necessarily prove the truth or falsity of the resolution.
-== Objections ==
-The most effective way of responding to truth testing is treating it like any other [[Role of the ballot|role of the ballot.]] This means that reading a counter role of the ballot and line-by-lining truth testing is the best way to respond.
-Responses to common arguments:
+=== Responses to Common Arguments ===
 On ''Jurisdiction:'' Tab doesn't actually ask for the truth or falsity, but asks the judge whether they vote aff or neg which means it's not actually about the truth of the resolution.
 On ''Inclusivity:'' Truth testing is not the most inclusive because it excludes arguments that don't prove the truth or falsity of the resolution.
@@ Line 32: / Line 33: @@
 On ''Resolvability:'' There may still be different conceptions of what is true and false. It may also be harder to resolve the round because you can't way between a claim of truth and a claim of falsity because they just clash.
-An interesting potential way of responding to truth testing is by using a pragmatic truth model. Many debaters do not know that their truth testing warrants are justifications for logical truth which means that it's possible to say, "I'll concede truth testing, but we will use a pragmatic model and here's why..." Pragmatic truth relies on context. A statement like "I am lying" is incoherent and contradictory under logical truth, but pragmatic truth can solve because it uses context to gut check contradictions. Pragmatic truth testing takes out frivolous a prioris like the resolved a priori because it relies on logical/semantic truth, but in reality this type of a priori makes no sense. Pragmatic truth testing allows us to achieve truth better because it's not just eliminating contradictions and truly a more inclusive model(which should give you more access to offense like kritiks or counterplans assuming you are winning a pragmatic model of truth).