1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"
Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)
Revision as of 21:36, 9 January 2022
, 21:36, 9 January 2022→**Under Construction**
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
=== What is Circuit Debate? === | === What is Circuit Debate? === | ||
| Line 177: | Line 175: | ||
|} | |} | ||
It's worth noting that the examples from this entire weighing section are extremely general, and you should almost certainly make your weighing arguments more specific and contextual to the evidence being offered in the round. | It's worth noting that the examples from this entire weighing section are extremely general, and you should almost certainly make your weighing arguments more specific and contextual to the evidence being offered in the round. | ||
==== Meta-Weighing ==== | ==== 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, "Nuclear war outweighs conventional war on magnitude, but conventional war outweighs nuclear war on probability." In this case, you will need to weigh ''between'' different weighing mechanisms. That is, you will need to prove why magnitude outweighs probability (or vice-versa). This is done in the same manner as the previous weighing examples. For example, "magnitude outweighs probability since even if an impact is unprovable but could be extremely destructive, we should prepare against it." As from before, this example is extremely general, and you should contextualize your meta-weighing to the specific arguments being made in your rounds. | 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, "Nuclear war outweighs conventional war on magnitude, but conventional war outweighs nuclear war on probability." In this case, you will need to weigh ''between'' different weighing mechanisms. That is, you will need to prove why magnitude outweighs probability (or vice-versa). This is done in the same manner as the previous weighing examples. For example, "magnitude outweighs probability since even if an impact is unprovable but could be extremely destructive, we should prepare against it." As from before, this example is extremely general, and you should contextualize your meta-weighing to the specific arguments being made in your rounds. | ||
=== 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. | ||