Difference between revisions of "Philosophy"

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
== Overview ==
== Overview ==
[Insert generic overview which details what this style of debate is about, why you might consider following this style of debate, the strategic benefits of this style of debate, and any other relevant overview information.]
Philosophy positions prove that the resolution is either a moral or immoral action. The affirmative proves the resolution morally desirable, and the negative, who defends the status quo, proves the resolution morally undesirable. To achieve this, philosophy cases first establish a framework that describes what makes an action moral, and then they apply that framework to judge the resolutional action moral or immoral.
 
Philosophy ("phil") is perhaps the most traditional of all styles of Lincoln-Douglas debate. The founding intent of LD was to be a values debate, and the fact that traditional LD follows this framework-contention style of debate is perhaps a testament to that fact. Despite that, the popularity of phil debate is Circuit LD is less than its popularity in traditional LD, since other arguments like [[policy]] and [[kritiks]] haven taken its place. That being said, phil cases, when ran correctly, can be among the most strategic positions.
 
Phil debate is largely strategic for three reasons. Firstly, many philosophical positions are strategic against [[utilitarianism]], one of the most common frameworks read in LD. Proficient phil debaters can become very adept at answering util, making it very difficult for their opponents to get recourse. Secondly, many debaters don't understand the nuances of phil debate and as a result, struggle to properly defend their framework against objections. Thirdly, philosophical frameworks provide an alternative way to answering kritiks, and as a result, many K debaters, used to answering policy, are less prepared to defend their positions against phil.  
== Common Philosophies ==
== Common Philosophies ==
[This section should have a ~2 sentence explanation for each philosopher, with a link to a more thorough page for each one.]
[This section should have a ~2 sentence explanation for each philosopher, with a link to a more thorough page for each one.]
Line 25: Line 29:


[[Hegel]]
[[Hegel]]
[[Pragmatism]]


[[Intuitionism]]
[[Intuitionism]]
[[Pragmatism]]


[[Particularism]]
[[Particularism]]

Revision as of 02:49, 10 January 2022

Overview

Philosophy positions prove that the resolution is either a moral or immoral action. The affirmative proves the resolution morally desirable, and the negative, who defends the status quo, proves the resolution morally undesirable. To achieve this, philosophy cases first establish a framework that describes what makes an action moral, and then they apply that framework to judge the resolutional action moral or immoral.

Philosophy ("phil") is perhaps the most traditional of all styles of Lincoln-Douglas debate. The founding intent of LD was to be a values debate, and the fact that traditional LD follows this framework-contention style of debate is perhaps a testament to that fact. Despite that, the popularity of phil debate is Circuit LD is less than its popularity in traditional LD, since other arguments like policy and kritiks haven taken its place. That being said, phil cases, when ran correctly, can be among the most strategic positions.

Phil debate is largely strategic for three reasons. Firstly, many philosophical positions are strategic against utilitarianism, one of the most common frameworks read in LD. Proficient phil debaters can become very adept at answering util, making it very difficult for their opponents to get recourse. Secondly, many debaters don't understand the nuances of phil debate and as a result, struggle to properly defend their framework against objections. Thirdly, philosophical frameworks provide an alternative way to answering kritiks, and as a result, many K debaters, used to answering policy, are less prepared to defend their positions against phil.

Common Philosophies

[This section should have a ~2 sentence explanation for each philosopher, with a link to a more thorough page for each one.]

Kant

Hobbes

Utilitarianism

Virtue Ethics

Contractarianism

Existentialism

Levinas

Moral Skepticism

Plato

Rawls

Hegel

Pragmatism

Intuitionism

Particularism

Pettit

Hijacks

A brief introduction of hijacks given here

Other Concepts

Act-Omission Distinction

Intent-Foresight Distinction

Induction

Presumption and Permissibility