|
Second Affirmative Constructive
{{Policy Debate In all forms of policy debate, the order of speeches is as follows: 1. AFF constructive 1 (1AC) a. Cross-examination (by NEG speaker 2) 2. NEG constructive 1 (1NC) :a. Cross-examination (by AFF speaker 1) 4. AFF constructive 2 (2AC) a. Cross-examination (by NEG speaker 1) 5. NEG constructive 2 (2NC) a. Cross-examination (By AFF speaker 2) 6. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 7. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 8. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 9. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) In high school, all four constructive speeches are generally eight minutes long and all four rebuttal speeches are four or five minutes in length depending on the region; in college they are nine and six minutes long respectively. All cross-examination periods are three minutes long in high school and in college. History Traditionally, rebuttals were half the length of constructive speeches, 8–4 min in high school and 10–5 min in college. The now-prevailin ... [...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 is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Case
Case or CASE may refer to: Instances * Instantiation (other), a realization of a concept, theme, or design * Special case, an instance that differs in a certain way from others of the type Containers * Case (goods), a package of related merchandise * Cartridge case or casing, a firearm cartridge component * Bookcase, a piece of furniture used to store books * Briefcase or attaché case, a narrow box to carry paperwork * Computer case, the enclosure for a PC's main components * Keep case, DVD or CD packaging * Pencil case * Phone case, protective or vanity accessory for mobile phones ** Battery case * Road case or flight case, for fragile equipment in transit * Shipping container or packing case * Suitcase, a large luggage box * Type case, a compartmentalized wooden box for letterpress typesetting Places * Case, Laclede County, Missouri * Case, Warren County, Missouri * Case River, a Kabika tributary in Ontario, Canada * Case Township, Michigan * Case del Conte, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion. Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation, 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 form ... [...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 is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negative Block
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 resolution. 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 "Negative block". Agent counterplan In policy d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Drop (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 (policy debate), resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs the Burden of proof (philosophy), burden of proof, which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The Negative (policy debate), ''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-min ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Preparation Time
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 resolution. 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 "Negative block". Agent counterplan In policy d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cross-examination
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (known as examination-in-chief in Law of the Republic of Ireland, Ireland, the Law of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom, Australian legal system, Australia, Law of Canada, Canada, Law of South Africa, South Africa, Law of India, India and Law of Pakistan, Pakistan) and may be followed by a Redirect examination, redirect (known as re-examination in the aforementioned countries). A redirect examination, performed by the attorney or pro se individual who performed the direct examination, clarifies the witness' testimony provided during cross-examination including any subject matter raised during cross-examination but not discussed during direct examination. Recross examination addresses the witness' testimony discussed in redirect by the opponent. Depending on the judge's discretion, opponents are allowed multiple opportunities to redirect and recross examine witnesse ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Impact Calculus
In policy and public forum debates, impact calculus, also known as weighing impacts, is a type of argumentation which seeks to compare the impacts presented in both causes and effects to sway the judge's decision. Basic Impact Calculus There are several basic types of impact calculus that compare the impacts of the plan to the impacts of a disadvantage: ; Probability (one impact is more realistic than the other) :e.g. Economic collapse is more seriously realistic than an outbreak of grey goo, therefore the risk of economic collapse outweighs the ''probability'' of a grey goo disaster. Probability is really important in a debate Probability has to have some substantiated historical evidence beyond theory to move to precedence or initial risk already incurred. ; Timeframe (one impact will happen sooner) :e.g. An asteroid impact will cause extinction ''before'' Global warming will, therefore an asteroid impact outweighs Global Warming. ; Magnitude (one impact is bigger) :e.g. Nucl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Prep Time
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 resolution. 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 "Negative block". Agent counterplan In policy d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
National Speech And Debate Association
The National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) is the largest interscholastic Individual events (speech), speech and Competitive debate in the United States, debate organization serving middle school and high school students in the United States. It was formed as the National Forensic League in 1925 by Bruno E. Jacob, Bruno Ernst Jacob. History 20th century As a Ripon College (Wisconsin), Ripon College student, Jacob created a pocket handbook, ''Suggestions for the Debater''. After becoming a professor at Ripon College, Jacob received a letter inquiring about the existence of a debate honor society. This led to the founding of the National Forensic League, with the earliest members joining on March 28, 1925. The National Forensic League was an honor society that recognized middle and high school students and coaches for participation in speech and debate activities. Students earned merit points for participation and were held to a Code of Honor. Karl Mundt served as the organi ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |