Tricks

From Circuit Debater LD
Revision as of 02:20, 12 January 2022 by Zsiegel (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

Tricks, broadly speaking, are debate arguments that are abusive and difficult to respond to. Tricky arguments are usually abusive either because they are hidden and intended for you to concede or because they are logically difficult to rebut. Tricky arguments are usually intended to provide a short and easy path to the ballot for the debater reading them, which is to say they are especially dangerous when conceded. Tricks can be strategic if you have a judge willing to evaluate such arguments, if you are more technically proficient than your opponent, or if you know your opponent is inexperienced at responding to tricks. When running tricks, however, you run the risk of heaving theory or kritiks read against you that criticize your practice.

Substantive Tricks

[Insert brief description of framework tricks, with links to Moral Skepticism, Determinism, Permissibility Triggers, Hijacks.]


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. Under truth testing, an argument that is dangerous is an “a priori”: an argument that attempts to prove the resolution is inherently true or false.

Theory Tricks

[Insert brief description of theory tricks with links to Frivolous Theory, Long Underviews, and Theory Heavy 1NCs.

Responding to Tricks

[Brief description to give people confidence in responding to tricks (you can do it!) with links to Uplayering Tricks with Theory and Uplayering Tricks with Ks.]