Introduction to Circuit Debate

Progressive vs. Traditional

Circuit debate refers to a set of standards and practices surrounding LD debates at big, nationwide (or “circuit”) tournaments. The main difference between these practices and the practices of traditional debate is that they are a lot more progressive. Conventions of circuit debate include spreading (very quick speaking), as well as progressive arguments like kritiks/Ks, counterplans, theory shells, and more. Circuit debaters often focus more on winning via speed, content, and the unique positions that they take. Circuit debates also contain a lot more debate jargon and “techy” arguments. 

In contrast, traditional debate focuses more on clarity and persuasion. Traditional debaters often speak slower and run cases that use the typical value and value criterion framework structure. Traditional debate is LD in its raw, true form, and is what most debaters start out with. In traditional debate, things like spreading and progressive arguments are less common, mostly for the fact that traditional judges will not understand or vote for them. To know whether or not a judge is traditional or progressive, ALWAYS read their paradigm before a round. Judges will typically delineate where they fall, and will have long lists describing which arguments they are likely to vote for and which they are not. 

Unlike traditional debates, which involve simpler philosophies like utilitarianism, structural violence, and rights-based frameworks, framework in progressive debate is more complex. You may encounter more complicated philosophies, like axiarchism. Progressive debates may hone in on more specific philosophers to structure frameworks around, like Kant. While Kant can still be run in traditional debate and utilitarianism is often still argued in circuit debate, progressive debates just tend to involve a lot more complex philosophies or go deeper into simple ones. 

Framework may also not be the most important thing to win in a progressive LD debate, or at least not framework in the traditional sense. Things like theory shells, which argue that your opponent has violated your interpretation of a rule debaters must follow, are procedural arguments, meaning they can be weighed prior to any other arguments in the round, including framework. This is a lot different from traditional debates, where arguments such as these are virtually nonexistent. 

Don’t feel discouraged if you used to be traditional, and now are struggling in a more progressive circuit. This guide will help you figure out how to get started in circuit debate!

Spreading

A common feature of circuit debate that you’ll want to get accustomed to as soon as possible is spreading. Spreading essentially means talking very fast, often be so fast that it is unintelligible at parts, which is why circuit debaters will typically send out a speech doc to follow along with as they speak. 

Still, it is important to, for the most part, understand spreading. Reliance on a speech doc alone to figure out what your opponent is saying may result in missing arguments. The best way to learn how to understand spreading is to watch rounds. Watch as many rounds as you can. If it helps you, you can utilize openCaselist to find a debater’s case and read along as they spread. This will be pretty accurate to how it will be in-round when someone is spreading, as you follow along with their speech doc. 

A common question asked by new circuit debaters is why people spread. A core difference between normal debate and circuit debate is that you discard the emphasis on emotion as a persuasion tool and replace it with more arguments and logical thinking. Spreading is simply an instrument used to fit more arguments into a round and to go much deeper into certain areas, such as Kantian philosophy, psychoanalysis, or tricks, all of which force people to think critically and extremely fast, especially since you spread rebuttals as well. It’s the same amount of prep time as in traditional debate, but the amount of content and information you get out and process drastically increases. As a result, the growth you receive from it is tremendous. In a nutshell, both sides understand spreading and use it at roughly the same speed, so it’s just normal debate but without the emphasis on emotion. More evidence is allowed in the round to increase the content of debate and the cognitive skills of debaters.

To keep up with other circuit debaters, you will have to spread yourself. There are several drills to practice spreading, including holding a chair while spreading to practice strength and endurance, saying ‘watermelon’ between every single word for speed and pronunciation, spreading backwards from the bottom of whatever you’re reading to be able to spread without thinking of the meaning or usual sentence structures, over-pronouncing each word to work on clarity, and spreading with a pen in-between your teeth, also for clarity. 

To flow spreading, you should not be using Google Docs or flowing on paper. It’s better to switch to something like Flexcel or a flowing template. You also shouldn’t be flowing full sentences, just a few key words here and there. 

To learn more about spreading, check out Circuit Debater and watch rounds so that you can practice flowing them. This is singlehandedly one of the best ways to build a strong foundation for circuit debate. Some of the best channels to utilize for circuit rounds are: 

• LASA debate

• Victory Briefs

• NSD Debate Camp

• Debate Drills

Some good rounds to start off with are: 

• TOC 2024 LD Semis - American Heritage Broward SS vs. Harker AS

• 2024 Tournament of Champions LD Quarters: Marlborough WR vs Harker AS

• TOC 2024 LD Round 6 - Lake Highland Prep PS vs. Harker AS

You can also just search circuit/progressive LD debate rounds to find large playlists or go to each channel and watch the most popular ones. 

Types of Arguments in Progressive LD

There are multiple different types of arguments that you can run in progressive LD. The main ones are disadvantages (DAs), counterplans (CPs), kritiks (Ks), theory, heavy philosophy, and trix. 

DAs are run by the neg, as they are disadvantages of the aff case and the plan that the aff proposes. DAs are fairly similar to traditional negative arguments. They have the same 4 basic components: uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. The ways to respond to a DA are also fairly similar to how you would respond to a traditional argument. You can: 

• Delink it. Use evidence to prove that the DA’s link is false/does not lead to their impact.

• Turn it. Say that the link actually produces a positive impact. 

• Takes out its uniqueness. Say that the argument is nonunique, i.e. it happens with or without the aff and is not a product of the aff. 

• Outweigh it. Say that the aff’s impacts outweigh the DA. 

Counterplans are also fairly simple progressive arguments. Counterplans are read by the negative and provide an alternative to the aff plan. They compete with what the aff is saying, state that the aff’s plan is bad or does not truly solve a problem, and then provide a viable alternative which the judge should vote for. 

Kritiks, often just referred to as Ks, point out an issue within society, and say the aff feeds into it in some way. They have a thesis which is what the K is about, a link which connects the aff to the issue, an impact which is the impact of the K, a ROB (role of the ballot) which is how the judge should vote, and an alternative on what to do instead of the issue/plan. Common Ks are capitalism, feminism, and settler colonialism. To find more in-depth information on Ks, check out our intermediate guides. 

Theory is an argument the debater uses to say that the opponent has been abusive in the round procedurally. The components of a theory argument are referred to as a shell. This includes an interpretation of the rule, the way in which the debater violated that interpretation, the standards (justification as to why what they did is bad), and voters (the reason why the judge should prioritize the shell). Common theories include disclosure, which is typically read on the negative and states that the aff should have to disclose the AC before the round, and accessibility requests, which states that each debater must verbally ask for accessibility requests before reading their constructive. 

Trix (or tricks) are more often run in varsity and phil debate. These arguments are heavily dependent on judge preference. Tricks are short things that some circuit debaters will hide within their cases, specific wordings which would negate the other side's case. Common tricks are a Priori or word trix, which redefines a word of the resolution to make the other side incoherent, nontopical, or unable to affirm/negate. Other Trix include truth testing, which evaluates how true or false the resolution is. 

Topicality is also a specific type of argument read by the negative when the aff is not fulfilling the burden of proving the resolution true. A common topicality argument is subsets, which is a response to an affirmative case that endorses a specific part or sub-category of the resolution, but not the resolution as a whole. For example, if an affirmative case on the Jan/Feb topic (Resolved: The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral) were to read a plan text that only deemed Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons immoral or only required that North Korea disarm their nuclear weapons, then the negative might respond with a topicality argument on subsets. They would say that the aff is not affirming the whole resolution, but rather a particular subset, which does not affirm as a general principle. 

You can find lots of examples of different ways in which these arguments can be run on some of the channels listed above, as well as on openCaselist.