Circuit Debater LD

Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"

Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)

Revision as of 15:23, 7 January 2022

2,099 bytes added ,  15:23, 7 January 2022
→‎"Offs"
Line 73: Line 73:
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 is typically only one layer in the debate: substance.  


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.
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.  
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"
{| class="wikitable"
Line 94: Line 95:
|}
|}
==== "Offs" ====
==== "Offs" ====
This section is a work in progress.
Related to layers is the concept of an "off." An "off" is a grouping of similar debate arguments that provide a path to win the round. While layers are used to generally categorize types of arguments in debate, an "off" is used to refer to a specific argument in a specific round. For example, if a debater is running a position that says "the affirmative's position will cause economic collapse, leading to nuclear war," all of the cards and evidence that support this overarching claim would be grouped together as an "off". This distinction may seem confusing, but remember that an "off" is used to refer to a specific grouping of argument in the round, whereas layers are used to categorize arguments generally across all debate rounds. See below for a table of common "offs" that are read in debate.
 
Also, debate "offs" are typically used to refer to the negative's positions, since the affirmative typically only reads one "off", the AC itself.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Debate Offs
!Off
!Corresponding Layer
!Description
|-
|NC
|[[Philosophy]]
|An NC is a specific framework with contentions that give a philosophical reason to vote negative.
|-
|[[Disadvantages|Disadvantage]]
|[[Policy]]
|A disadvantage is a policy argument that illustrates the disadvantages of passing the affirmative through a consequentialist-style link chain.
|-
|[[Counterplans|Counterplan]]
|[[Policy]]
|A counterplan is a policy argument where the negative proposes a counter-advocacy to the affirmative's position, rather than defending the status-quo.
|-
|[[Structure of a Shell|Theory Shell]]
|[[Theory]]
|A theory shell is a specific theory argument proving why your opponent is abusive. While theory refers to all arguments that derive offense from proving your opponent's abuse, a theory shell is a specific instance of a theory argument in-round.
|-
|[[Structure of Kritiks|Kritik]]
|[[Kritiks]]
|Though the naming convention is confusing, a kritik would prove why one aspect of your opponent's orientation is problematic in the debate round. Similar to a theory shell, a kritik is a specific instance of the general category of kritiks.  
|}
 
=== 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/2038"