|
Structure Of Policy Debate
{{Policy Debate In all forms of policy debate, the order of speeches is as follows: 1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) :a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative 2. First Negative Constructive (1NC) :a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative 3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) :a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative 4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC) :a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative 5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 8. 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 wer ... [...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] |
Case
Case or CASE may refer to: 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, Italy People * Case (name), people with the surname (or given name) * Case (singer), American R&B singer-songwriter and producer (Case Woodard) Arts, entertainment, and medi ... [...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] |
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] |
Negative (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] |
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 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 "Negativ ... [...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 mandates of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 ... [...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 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] |
Cross-examination
In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in Ireland, England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan). 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 witnesses (may vary by jurisdiction). Variations by jurisdiction In the United States federal Courts, a cross-examining ... [...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. Basic Impact Calculus There are several basic types of impact calculus that compare the impacts of the plan to the impacts of a disadvantage: ; Substantiality (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. Nuclear war could kill ''more' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Prep Time
PowerPC Reference Platform (PReP) was a standard system architecture for PowerPC-based computer systems (as well as a reference implementation) developed at the same time as the PowerPC processor architecture. Published by IBM in 1994, it allowed hardware vendors to build a machine that could run various operating systems, including Windows NT, OS/2, Solaris, Taligent and AIX. One of the stated goals of the PReP specification was to leverage standard PC hardware. Apple, wishing to seamlessly transition its Macintosh computers to PowerPC, found this to be particularly problematic. As it appeared no one was particularly happy with PReP, a new standard, the Common Hardware Reference Platform (CHRP), was developed and published in late 1995, incorporating the elements of both PReP and the Power Macintosh architecture. Key to CHRP was the requirement for Open Firmware (also required in PReP-compliant systems delivered after June 1, 1995), which gave vendors greatly improved support ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
National Speech And Debate Association
The National Speech and Debate Association is an American student debating society. It was established in 1925 as the National Forensic League; the name was changed in 2014. It is one of four major national organizations that direct high school competitive speech and debate events in the United States, the others being the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, and Stoa. It holds an annual national tournament. See also * Competitive debate in the United States Competitive debate, also known as forensics or speech and debate, has a history in the United States dating back to colonial times. The practice, an import from British education, began as in-class exercises in which students would present argum ... References * Tammie Peters, Golden High School. (2003)In Defense of the NFL (and debate in all its forms) ''Rostrum''. Retrieved December 30, 2005. External links * of the National Speech & Debate Assoc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Argument")
.jpg "Click for more on -> Cross-examination")
