|
Advantage (debate)
In competitive debate, an advantage is the way that the Affirmative (policy debate), affirmative team refers to the positive consequences of adopting their position on the Resolution (debate), debate resolution. It is an argument structure that seeks to convince the judge that the Affirmation (declaration of truth), affirmative plan, if adopted, would result in a net-beneficial improvement to the status quo. __TOC__ Structure Some variance in the structure of an advantage exists. The following are two of the most common structures: Method 1 *Uniqueness: An argument describing something in the status quo. Falls under the stock issue of Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Inherency, inherency. *Impact: an argument explaining why that condition of the status quo is damaging. Falls under the stock issue of Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms#Harms, harms. *Solvency (policy debate), Solvency: an argument describing how the plan can alter the status quo to avoid the impact. Method 2 *Uniqu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Debate
Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a moderator and audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for often opposing viewpoints. Debates have historically occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, coffeehouses, competitions, and legislative assemblies. Debate has also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates put an emphasis upon logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern forms of competitive debate also include rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debate (how the debate will be judged). History Debating in various forms has a long history and can be traced back to the philosophical and political debates of Ancient Greece, such as Athenian democracy or Shastrartha in Ancient India. Modern forms of debating and the es ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirmative (policy Debate)
Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of Policy Debate. The main argument being debated during a round of Policy is which team wins a system by which the debate should be evaluated (Framework) and who wins under this framework (gets the ballot). When a team explains why their impacts are "greater" than the opposition's impacts, they utilize the concept of "impact calculus." One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to address a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for imp ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Resolution (debate)
This is a glossary of policy debate terms. Affirmative In policy debate (also called ''cross-examination debate'' in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the ''Affirmative'' is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the mandates of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs the burden of proof, which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The ''Negative'' side, in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to the Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Negat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Affirmation (declaration Of Truth)
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath. Some religious adherents hold beliefs that allow them to make legally binding promises but forbid them to swear an oath before a deity. Additionally, an individual may decline making a religious oath due to their personal beliefs, or those of their audience. In some jurisdictions, an affirmation may be given only if such a reason is provided. United Kingdom A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695 (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the affirmation was the following: "I A.B. do declare in the Pre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Status Quo
is a Latin phrase meaning the existing state of affairs, particularly with regard to social, political, religious or military issues. In the sociological sense, the ''status quo'' refers to the current state of social structure and/or values. With regard to policy debate, it means how conditions are, contrasted with a possible change. For example: "The countries are now trying to maintain the ''status quo'' with regard to their nuclear arsenals." To maintain the ''status quo'' is to keep things the way they presently are. The related phrase ''status quo ante'', literally "the status before", refers to the state of affairs that existed previously. Political usage Via social movements the status quo might be overhauled. These seek to alleviate or prevent a particular issue and often to shape social feeling and cultural expression of a society or nation. The status quo is at least in part rejected by their protagonists – progressives – leading the movement. Advocat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called conclusion. Arguments can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. In logic, an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language, and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science. Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments. Deductive arguments can be valid, and the valid ones can be sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Glossary Of Policy Debate Terms
This is a glossary of policy debate terms. Affirmative In policy debate (also called ''cross-examination debate'' in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the ''Affirmative'' is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the mandates of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs the burden of proof, which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The ''Negative'' side, in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to the Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Nega ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Solvency (policy Debate)
This is a glossary of policy debate terms. Affirmative In policy debate (also called ''cross-examination debate'' in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the ''Affirmative'' is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the mandates of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs the burden of proof, which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The ''Negative'' side, in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to the Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Nega ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Disadvantage
In policy debate, a disadvantage (abbreviated as DA, and sometimes referred to as: Disad) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. A disadvantage is also used in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. Structure A Disadvantage usually has four key elements. These four elements are not always necessary depending on the type of disadvantage run, and some are often combined into a single piece of evidence. A Unique Link card, for example, will include both a description of the Status quo#:~:text=With regard to policy debate,the situation gets any worse.%22, status quo and the plan's effect on it. A traditional threshold DA, however, has a structure as follows: Uniqueness Uniqueness shows why the Impacts haven't occurred yet or to a substantial extent and will ''uniquely'' occur with the adoption of either the Affirmative's plan or the Negative's counterplan. An Example: If the negative team argues that the affirmative plan will result in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Policy Debate
Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of Policy Debate. The main argument being debated during a round of Policy is which team wins a system by which the debate should be evaluated (Framework) and who wins under this framework (gets the ballot). When a team explains why their impacts are "greater" than the opposition's impacts, they utilize the concept of "impact calculus." One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to address a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for imp ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Debating
Debate is a process that involves formal discourse on a particular topic, often including a Discussion moderator, moderator and audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for often opposing viewpoints. Debates have historically occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, English coffeehouses in the 17th and 18th centuries, coffeehouses, competitions, and Deliberative assembly, legislative assemblies. Debate has also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates put an emphasis upon logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern forms of competitive debate also include rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debate (how the debate will be judged). History Debating in various forms has a long history and can be traced back to the philosophical and political debates of Ancient Greece, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Argument")
