Difference between revisions of "Hijacks"
(made it nicer) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== | == Overview == | ||
Hijacks are | Hijacks are an argument that prove why the syllogism used to justify one framework actually justify a different framework. Frameworks are justified through a syllogism of arguments, <math>A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C</math>. Suppose that <math>A</math> represents the first premise of the framework, and <math>C</math> represents the final premise of the framework, the standard. A hijack would disrupt this syllogism somewhere along the way to conclude in a different standard, such as <math>A \rightarrow D \rightarrow E</math>, where <math>E</math> represents an alternative standard. The debater reading the hijack would then read offense under the standard <math>E</math> that flows in the opposite direction of the original standard <math>C</math>. | ||
Hijacks are particularly strategic because they allow the debater reading the hijack to avoid answering all of the premises of the original framework. From the previous example, the debater reading the hijack could completely avoid answering the justifications for argument <math>A</math>, since they simply contested the fact that <math>A \rightarrow B</math> but not <math>A</math> itself. This could be useful if the original framework had many justifications for <math>A</math> that would be difficult or time-consuming to answer. Additionally, nothing limits a debater from reading multiple hijacks as long as they do not contradict themselves, which gives them multiple substantive outs. | |||
More concretely, suppose that the affirmative debater reads a utilitarian framework with <math>10</math> justifications for why util is true. Instead of answering all <math>10</math> justifications, the negative debater instead reads a hijack that says, "I'll concede to the fact that we all experience pain and pleasure. However, that means we have a moral responsibility to maximize ''our own'' pleasure and not care about the pleasure of others. That concludes in ethical egoism, not utilitarianism. Furthermore ethical egoism negates because <math>X</math>." In this example, you can see how the negative managed to avoid answering the bulk of the affirmative's framework but has a viable substantive route to the ballot. | |||
== Example == | |||
[[:File:CD Hijack Example.docx|File:CD Hijack Example.docx]] | |||
==Example== | |||
Latest revision as of 04:12, 18 January 2022
Overview
Hijacks are an argument that prove why the syllogism used to justify one framework actually justify a different framework. Frameworks are justified through a syllogism of arguments, . Suppose that represents the first premise of the framework, and represents the final premise of the framework, the standard. A hijack would disrupt this syllogism somewhere along the way to conclude in a different standard, such as , where represents an alternative standard. The debater reading the hijack would then read offense under the standard that flows in the opposite direction of the original standard .
Hijacks are particularly strategic because they allow the debater reading the hijack to avoid answering all of the premises of the original framework. From the previous example, the debater reading the hijack could completely avoid answering the justifications for argument , since they simply contested the fact that but not itself. This could be useful if the original framework had many justifications for that would be difficult or time-consuming to answer. Additionally, nothing limits a debater from reading multiple hijacks as long as they do not contradict themselves, which gives them multiple substantive outs.
More concretely, suppose that the affirmative debater reads a utilitarian framework with justifications for why util is true. Instead of answering all justifications, the negative debater instead reads a hijack that says, "I'll concede to the fact that we all experience pain and pleasure. However, that means we have a moral responsibility to maximize our own pleasure and not care about the pleasure of others. That concludes in ethical egoism, not utilitarianism. Furthermore ethical egoism negates because ." In this example, you can see how the negative managed to avoid answering the bulk of the affirmative's framework but has a viable substantive route to the ballot.
