Difference between revisions of "Philosophy"

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 7: Line 7:
== Structure of Frameworks ==
== Structure of Frameworks ==
  This section is under construction.
  This section is under construction.
=== Terminology ===
=== Terminology ===
=== Parts of a Framework ===
=== Parts of a Framework ===
== Common Philosophies ==
== Common Philosophies ==
[[Utilitarianism]] is likely the most common framework read in LD. Used as the framework for [[policy]] positions, utilitarian frameworks center around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.  
[[Utilitarianism]] is likely the most common framework read in LD. Used as the framework for [[policy]] positions, utilitarian frameworks center around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.  
Line 43: Line 40:
[[Pettit]], or non-domination, is another political philosophy that provides an alternative account of freedom and attempts to uphold said account. Non-domination is to be free from the arbitrary-interference of another agent to impede upon one's ends, in contrast to non-interference, which is is to be free only if one's ends are not being actively impeded upon.  
[[Pettit]], or non-domination, is another political philosophy that provides an alternative account of freedom and attempts to uphold said account. Non-domination is to be free from the arbitrary-interference of another agent to impede upon one's ends, in contrast to non-interference, which is is to be free only if one's ends are not being actively impeded upon.  
== Other Concepts ==
== Other Concepts ==
[[Hijacks]]
[[Presumption and Permissibility#Presumption|Presumption]] determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of any offense in the round.


[[Induction]] is a method used to enable one to draw a conclusion based on some supporting observed pattern. This concept is often used in consequentialist frameworks and is important to understand to respond to and make objections to said frameworks.  
[[Presumption and Permissibility#Permissibility|Permissibility]] determines whether an action should be taken when an action is neither moral nor immoral.  


[[Presumption and Permissibility#Presumption|Presumption]]
[[Hijacks]] are a type of argument used to prove that the arguments used to justify one framework actually justify a different framework.


[[Presumption and Permissibility#Permissibility|Permissibility]]
[[Induction]] is a method used to enable one to draw a conclusion based on some supporting observed pattern. This concept is often used in consequentialist frameworks and is important to understand to respond to and make objections to said frameworks.


[[Act-Omission Distinction]]
[[Act-Omission Distinction]]


[[Intent-Foresight Distinction]]
[[Intent-Foresight Distinction]]

Revision as of 03:19, 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.

Structure of Frameworks

This section is under construction.

Terminology

Parts of a Framework

Common Philosophies

Utilitarianism is likely the most common framework read in LD. Used as the framework for policy positions, utilitarian frameworks center around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Kant is probably the most popular framework besides for util read in LD. Kant's philosophy centers around recognizing all agents as rational, which implies treating people equally and respecting their freedom.

Hobbes is another popular political philosophy used in LD. Hobbes' philosophy involves recognizing the state as the ultimate source of power and respecting its wishes.

Virtue Ethics is a philosophy centered around turning moral agents into better people by improving their character. Unlike other frameworks which judge actions or right as wrong based on some rule, virtue ethics aims to turn agents into inherently better people.

Contractarianism is a framework that argues agents should respect contracts, or agreements, that they have made with each other. It argues that other frameworks are not binding since people find their own sources of good, and the only achievable goal is to honor contracts so that everyone can achieve what they best want.

Existentialism is a framework largely centered around discovery and meaning-creation. Existentialists would allow people to express and explore their own identities to find meaning in life, without pushing people into boxes.

Levinas is a framework that is focused around respecting the Other. The Other, which represents a person that is not oneself, is infinitely unknowable and deserves respect, and should not be totalized.

Moral Skepticism is not a philosophical framework, as it advocates the opposite of what other frameworks say! Skepticism argues that it is impossible to be moral, and the quest for moral truth is meaningless.

Plato establishes that an ideal, perfect, and abstract form exists of any object, and charges us with discovering and attempting to find these forms in our lives.

Rawls is a political philosopher who coined the veil of ignorance, the concept that we should take any action by imagining we live behind the veil of ignorance, in that we know nothing about our personal identity or lives so that personal biases don't influence our thoughts on a particular action.

Hegel establishes the concept of an ethical community, or a community of agents, and charges us recognizing others within these ethical communities.

Pragmatism is an American philosophy that is centered around truth-creation and finding truth. It argues that we learn truth from the experiences we are subjected to, and advocates a philosophy of exploration to further help is attain truth.

Intuitionism is a philosophy that argues moral actions are those that stem from our intuitions.

Particularism is a position that argues that blanket-statement moral statements are invalid without accounting for the particularity of various scenarios. This almost always negates by proving the resolution is too broad of a statement.

Pettit, or non-domination, is another political philosophy that provides an alternative account of freedom and attempts to uphold said account. Non-domination is to be free from the arbitrary-interference of another agent to impede upon one's ends, in contrast to non-interference, which is is to be free only if one's ends are not being actively impeded upon.

Other Concepts

Presumption determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of any offense in the round.

Permissibility determines whether an action should be taken when an action is neither moral nor immoral.

Hijacks are a type of argument used to prove that the arguments used to justify one framework actually justify a different framework.

Induction is a method used to enable one to draw a conclusion based on some supporting observed pattern. This concept is often used in consequentialist frameworks and is important to understand to respond to and make objections to said frameworks.

Act-Omission Distinction

Intent-Foresight Distinction