Crystalization
- Offense vs Defense In circuit LD, there is an important distinction between offensive and defensive arguments. Offensive arguments are a proactive reason why your argument is correct over your opponent's argument. Defensive arguments are just a reason why your opponent's argument is incorrect. Importantly, a defensive argument doesn't prove why your arguments are correct; they simply weaken your opponent's argument.
Suppose the resolution is, "Resolved: Circuit Debater Library is a useful educational resource." An offensive argument for the affirmative would give a reason why Circuit Debater Library is educational; for example, it makes it easy for people to learn about new arguments. An offensive argument for the negative would give a reason why Circuit Debater Library is detrimental to one's education as a debater; for example it makes debaters lazy so they won't research their own arguments. A defensive argument for the negative, on the other hand, would argue why Circuit Debater Library is not educational; for example, Circuit Debater Library's website crashes all the time so debaters are never able to access its resources. Importantly, note that the defensive argument is not proving that Circuit Debater Library is actively uneducational; rather, it proves why Circuit Debater Library fails to provide education.
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 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, as an argument might outweigh another on several criterion. The most common weighing mechanisms are outlined in the table below. Weighing Mechanisms
| Name | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Magnitude | The severity of your impact | Earthquakes outweigh snowstorms on magnitude since earthquakes cause far more destruction than snowstorms. |
| Scope | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | The amount of defense that has been placed against your impact | Argument A outweighs Argument B on strength of link because Argument A was completely conceded whereas Argument B has defensive responses against it. |
| 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
Sometimes, Argument A might outweigh Argument B under one weighing criterion, but Argument B might outweigh Argument A 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 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.
In circuit LD, in contrast, judges are often trained to evaluate the round solely based on the technical interactions between all of the arguments on their flow. You might view a circuit LD judge more like a computer algorithm that processes each and every argument on the flow, ultimately voting for the debater whose arguments are strongest. This often means that circuit judges will evaluate arguments that might seem silly or unpersuasive if they are conceded by the opponent. Circuit LD judges are said to value the technical aspects of the debate ("tech") over the "truth" value of the arguments.
This concept adoption of a "tech over truth" mindset has widely shaped argumentative practices in debate. On the one hand, it has allowed more diverse arguments to proliferate since judges are forced to consider all positions and be as open-minded as possible. Likely, much theory, philosophy, and literature(/kritiks), would not be in debate if judges were not willing to expand their willingness to vote on different types of arguments. On the other hand, this mindset has also allowed for many more silly arguments to proliferate. Much of tricks debate hinges on the fact that judges are willing to vote on arguments, no matter how silly they are, if conceded. Even many theory arguments, especially theory(/frivolous-theory), exploit the tech over truth aspect of debate.
With all of this said, judges are ultimately human beings. Most judges will not vote for arguments they deem discriminatory, even if conceded. And most judges will also be more comfortable evaluating certain styles of argumentation than others and may even implicitly prefer certain arguments. For these reasons, it is important to always read your judge's paradigm before the round and make sure you adapt your debating accordingly.
