Difference between revisions of "Permissibility and Presumption"

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
== Overview ==
== Important Note ==
Permissibility and presumption are ''not the same concept.'' They should not be grouped together in the form of "presumption and permissibility affirm/negate" because the arguments that justify presumption are distinct from the arguments that justify permissibility. If your opponent does group the justifications for presumption and permissibility together, you should take advantage of that by articulating which of the warrants actually apply to presumption or permissibility when arguing that one affirms or negates.


== Presumption ==
=== Description ===
=== Description ===
Presumption determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of offense in the debate round. If neither debater has any offense, the judge would have no way of making a decision. Instead, the judge votes on presumption. If the judge votes on presumption, they would affirm if presumption is said to affirm, or they would negate if presumption is said to negate. Naturally, the affirmative should argue that presumption affirms, and the negative should argue that presumption negates.


=== Theoretical vs Substantive Warrants ===
There are typically two ways to justify whether presumption affirms or negates: theoretically or substantively. Theoretical justifications will argue that presumption should affirm or negate for reasons based in fairness or education. Substantive justifications will argue that presumption should affirm or negate based on philosophical or textual reasons.
 
== Presumption ==
 
=== Description ===


=== Presumption Affirms ===
=== Presumption Affirms ===
=== Presumption Negates ===
=== Presumption Negates ===
== Permissibility ==
== Permissibility ==
=== Description ===
=== Description ===
Permissibility is a common argument in philosophy (phil) debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you ''can'' do as opposed to what you must or cannot. Debaters often argue that permissibility either 'affirms' or 'negates.' Some affirmative arguments claim that ought statements are modal, and therefore to disprove an 'ought' you must prove a prohibition true. Alternatively, negative arguments generally revolve around the definition of the word 'ought.'
Permissibility is a common argument in philosophy (phil) debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you ''can'' do as opposed to what you must or cannot. Debaters often argue that permissibility either 'affirms' or 'negates.' Some affirmative arguments claim that ought statements are modal, and therefore to disprove an 'ought' you must prove a prohibition true. Alternatively, negative arguments generally revolve around the definition of the word 'ought.'
=== Permissibility Affirms ===
=== Permissibility Affirms ===
=== Permissibility Negates ===
=== Permissibility Negates ===

Revision as of 03:15, 18 January 2022

Important Note

Permissibility and presumption are not the same concept. They should not be grouped together in the form of "presumption and permissibility affirm/negate" because the arguments that justify presumption are distinct from the arguments that justify permissibility. If your opponent does group the justifications for presumption and permissibility together, you should take advantage of that by articulating which of the warrants actually apply to presumption or permissibility when arguing that one affirms or negates.

Presumption

Description

Presumption determines which way the judge should vote in the absence of offense in the debate round. If neither debater has any offense, the judge would have no way of making a decision. Instead, the judge votes on presumption. If the judge votes on presumption, they would affirm if presumption is said to affirm, or they would negate if presumption is said to negate. Naturally, the affirmative should argue that presumption affirms, and the negative should argue that presumption negates.

There are typically two ways to justify whether presumption affirms or negates: theoretically or substantively. Theoretical justifications will argue that presumption should affirm or negate for reasons based in fairness or education. Substantive justifications will argue that presumption should affirm or negate based on philosophical or textual reasons.

Presumption Affirms

Presumption Negates

Permissibility

Description

Permissibility is a common argument in philosophy (phil) debates. The central claim of permissibility arguments is that there is a moral 'middle ground' between an action being obligatory and prohibited. Permissibility occurs when a moral agent can choose whether or not to do an action and retain their moral status regardless of their choice. Essentially, permissibility is what you can do as opposed to what you must or cannot. Debaters often argue that permissibility either 'affirms' or 'negates.' Some affirmative arguments claim that ought statements are modal, and therefore to disprove an 'ought' you must prove a prohibition true. Alternatively, negative arguments generally revolve around the definition of the word 'ought.'

Permissibility Affirms

Permissibility Negates