|
Inter-Collegiate Policy Debate
Inter-collegiate policy debate is a form of speech competition involving two teams of two debaters from different colleges or universities based on a resolution phrased as something the United States federal government "should" do. Policy debate also exists as a high school activity, with a very similar format, but different leagues, tournaments, speech times, resolutions, and styles. Format Each round is divided into four 9-minute constructive speeches, each followed by a 3-minute cross-examination period, then four 6-minute rebuttal speeches. The two sides alternate, with the affirmative getting the first and last speeches of the round and the negative getting the last constructive and the first rebuttal in the middle. Most affirmative teams present a specific policy option, or plan, as a normative defence of the resolution. However, some teams partake in alternative forms of debate, including performance, personal advocacies, or otherwise critical approaches. Negatives have se ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Individual Events (speech)
Individual events in speech include public speaking, limited preparation, and acting and interpretation and are a part of forensics competitions. These events do not include the several different forms of debate offered by many tournaments. These events are called individual events because they tend to be done by one person unlike debate which often includes teams. This distinction however is not entirely accurate any more given the addition of duo interpretation events and forms of single person debate. Competitive speech competitions and debates comprise the area of Public speaking, forensics. Forensics leagues have a number of speech events, generally determined by geographical region or league preference. While there are several key events that have been around a long time, there are several experimental events around the country every year that can be limited to individual tournaments. Forensics leagues in the United States includes the National Speech and Debate Association, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Counterplan
A counterplan is a component of debate theory commonly employed in the activity of parliamentary and policy debate. While some conceptions of debate theory require the negative position in a debate to defend the status quo against an affirmative position or plan, a counterplan allows the negative to defend a separate plan or an advocacy. It also allows the affirmative to run disadvantages against the negative. Topicality Most forms of debate begin from some resolution or statement of advocacy. As the affirmative plan affirms the resolution in theory or at least within the sphere of its distinct existence, it is reasonable to assume that the negative team must advocate the negation of the resolution, usually either through the defense of the status quo or a counterplan distinct from the resolution advocacy. However, in many circles, the affirmative ability to select their specific plan gives the negative justification to select another topical plan, so long it is 'competitive' w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
National Educational Debate Association
{{Unreferenced, date=January 2011 The National Educational Debate Association (NEDA) is an American collegiate debate association emphasizing audience-centered debate. It was founded by debate educators who believe that the debate tournament is an extension of the communication classroom and that even competitive debates should provide students with skills of research, argument selection, and presentation style that will benefit them as public advocates. NEDA schedules eight invitational tournaments a year, primarily in the mid-west. The association debates two resolutions per year. The fall resolution is one of value, and the spring resolution is one of policy. Several aspects of NEDA make it distinct from other debate organizations, including the ability to decide topicality at the end of the constructive speeches, the ability of judges to give "double losses" in those cases in which neither team argues in a manner consistent befitting a public advocate, closed cross examination ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
American Debate Association
The American Debate Association began in 1985 as an intercollegiate 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, a ... association. It uses the Resolution (policy debate), resolution selected by the Cross Examination Debate Association and the National Debate Tournament. Currently they have 40 member schools. Its current president is Danielle Verney-O'Gorman, Director of Debate at the United States Naval Academy. History The ADA was founded in 1985. The ADA was founded to emphasize the argumentation and persuasive speech elements of policy debate, and to provide a training ground for novice debaters. It was formed in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, in Virginia, Maryland, DC and Pennsylvania. Member Schools 2017-2018 Member Schools: Boston College California ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cross Examination Debate Association
The Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) ( ) is the largest intercollegiate policy debate association in the United States. Throughout the school year, CEDA sanctions over 60 tournaments throughout the nation, including an annual National Championship Tournament that brings together over 175 individual debate teams from across the nation to compete on the basis of research, persuasive speaking, argumentation, and philosophy. For a number of years, CEDA employed a two-person team value debate format. CEDA utilized two topics each year, one governing the fall semester and the second governing the spring semester. For the spring 1996 topic, it was voted to continue debating the fall topic about Mexico. Beginning with the 1996–1997 season, however, CEDA has employed a single, year-long policy debate topic. Controversy In the 2013 tournament, the winning team from Emporia State University was criticized for using personal memoirs and hip hop, rap music to criticize white pr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
National Debate Tournament
The National Debate Tournament is one of the national championships for collegiate policy debate in the United States. The tournament is sponsored by the American Forensic Association with the Ford Motor Company Fund. History of the NDT The National Debate Tournament (NDT) began in 1947 at the United States Military Academy at West Point. Twenty-nine schools competed at the first NDT debating: "Resolved: That labor should be given a direct share in the management of industry". It remained at West Point through 1966, at which time the Tournament Director met with the district chairs and advised them that at the tournament banquet of the Military Academy's decision to discontinue hosting the NDT in the ensuing years in part because of the increased demands on space and money that the United States' growing involvement in the Vietnam War was placing on the Academy. Since then the tournament has moved to different member schools each year and only three schools have hosted i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Evidence (policy Debate)
In a policy debate competition, evidence (sometimes referred to as "cards") consists mainly of two parts. The ''citation'' contains all relevant reference information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically cited in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. The ''body'' is a section or portion of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tagline (the debater's summary of the evidence) is read first, followed by the body and citation. As pieces of evidenc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Topicality (policy Debate)
Topicality is a stock issue in policy debate which pertains to whether or not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue. Structure of Negative's Argument An argument against the Affirmative's topicality, when presented in the 1NC, is generally as follows: *Interpretation - Also known as "definition", interpretation of a word or words in the resolution, often supported by evidence. Evidence to support an interpretation can come from virtually "any" source (dictionary, legal dictionary, academic paper, laws, court rulings, etc.) and emphasis is placed on both the desirability of the interpretation and the quality of the evidence which supports the interpretation. *Violation - Reason(s) why the plan does not meet the interpretat ... [...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] |
College
A college (Latin: ''collegium'') is an educational institution or a constituent part of one. A college may be a degree-awarding tertiary educational institution, a part of a collegiate or federal university, an institution offering vocational education, or a secondary school. In most of the world, a college may be a high school or secondary school, a college of further education, a training institution that awards trade qualifications, a higher-education provider that does not have university status (often without its own degree-awarding powers), or a constituent part of a university. In the United States, a college may offer undergraduate programs – either as an independent institution or as the undergraduate program of a university – or it may be a residential college of a university or a community college, referring to (primarily public) higher education institutions that aim to provide affordable and accessible education, usually limited to two-year as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Stock Issues
{{Policy Debate In the formal speech competition genre known as policy debate, a widely accepted doctrine or "debate theory" divides the argument elements of supporting the resolution affirmative into five subtopical issues, called the stock issues. Stock issues are sometime referred to as on-case arguments or simply on-case or case arguments as opposed off-case arguments. Logicality Three issues must first be present in the affirmative case and are the main ideas or values to vote on for taking any action (in policy debate or in everyday life). They ask: What are we doing now (inherency stock issue)? What could we be doing differently (solvency stock issue)? What are the results of what we are doing now versus what we could be doing (significance stock issue)? The last stock issue, topicality, is procedural and unique to debate as it concerns how germane the plan (specifically, plan as stated) is to the given resolution. Components The stock issues are: * Significance: This ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
