1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)
Revision as of 21:29, 9 January 2022
, 21:29, 9 January 2022→Weighing
| 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 === | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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. | 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, as an argument might outweigh another on several criterion. The most common weighing mechanisms are outlined in the table below. | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+Weighing Mechanisms | |+Weighing Mechanisms | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
|Magnitude | |Magnitude | ||
|The severity of your impact | |The severity of your impact | ||
| | |Earthquakes outweigh snowstorms on magnitude since earthquakes cause far more destruction than snowstorms. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Scope | |Scope | ||
|The number of people your impact will affect | |The number of people your impact will affect | ||
| | |Nuclear war outweighs conventional war on scope since nuclear war kills a far greater number of people. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Probability | |Probability | ||
|The probability your impact will be true | |The probability your impact will be true | ||
| | |Conventional war outweighs nuclear war on probability since its far less probable that countries will risk unleashing their nuclear weapons. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Timeframe | |Timeframe | ||
|The amount of time it will take until your impact becomes relevant | |The amount of time it will take until your impact becomes relevant | ||
| | |US-China war outweighs the effects of climate change on timeframe since it's more likely the US and China will go to war before climate change kills us. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Duration | |Duration | ||
|The amount of time your impact will take place for | |The amount of time your impact will take place for | ||
| | |Climate change outweighs war on duration since the effects of climate change will be felt for centuries while a war is comparatively shorter. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Reversibility | |Reversibility | ||
|The difficulty of reversing the effects of your impact | |The difficulty of reversing the effects of your impact | ||
| | |Nuclear war outweighs conventional war on reversibility since the radiation caused by a nuclear bomb is more difficult to clean up. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Strength of Link | |Strength of Link | ||
|The amount of defense that has been placed against your impact | |The amount of defense that has been placed against your impact | ||
| | |Argument <math>A</math> outweighs Argument <math>B</math> on strength of link because Argument <math>A</math> was completely conceded whereas Argument <math>B</math> has defensive responses against it. | ||
|} | |} | ||
==== 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, | 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. | ||