|
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 interpreta ... [...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] |
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 impl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Plan (policy Debate)
{{Policy Debate In debate, which is a form of argument competition, a case, sometimes known as plan, is a textual advocacy presented, in form of speech, by the Pro team as a normative or "''should''" statement; it is generally presented in the First Pro Constructive ( 1AC). A case will often include either the resolution or a rephrasing of it. The case is the advocacy established by the Pro in the First affirmative constructive speech, often constructed around the support of a policy recommendation known as the affirmative plan. While the 1AC defines the parameters for the bulk of an affirmative's argument, the term "case" can be used to cover the entirety of the affirmative argument more broadly, referring, for instance, to additional advantages, counter-arguments, or rebuttal evidence that might be introduced in later speeches (if at all). The Structure of the Case The case is a form of on-topic debate and can also be referred to as C if done in the standard way C is a very ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Resolution (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 "Negati ... [...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 impl ... [...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] |
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] |
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] |
Judge (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] |
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] |
Interpretation (logic)
An interpretation is an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language. Many formal languages used in mathematics, logic, and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, and as such do not have any meaning until they are given some interpretation. The general study of interpretations of formal languages is called formal semantics. The most commonly studied formal logics are propositional logic, predicate logic and their modal analogs, and for these there are standard ways of presenting an interpretation. In these contexts an interpretation is a function that provides the extension of symbols and strings of symbols of an object language. For example, an interpretation function could take the predicate ''T'' (for "tall") and assign it the extension (for "Abraham Lincoln"). Note that all our interpretation does is assign the extension to the non-logical constant ''T'', and does not make a claim about whether ''T'' is to stand for tall and 'a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Grammar
In linguistics, the grammar of a natural language is its set of structural constraints on speakers' or writers' composition of clauses, phrases, and words. The term can also refer to the study of such constraints, a field that includes domains such as phonology, morphology, and syntax, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. There are currently two different approaches to the study of grammar: traditional grammar and theoretical grammar. Fluent speakers of a language variety or ''lect'' have effectively internalized these constraints, the vast majority of which – at least in the case of one's native language(s) – are acquired not by conscious study or instruction but by hearing other speakers. Much of this internalization occurs during early childhood; learning a language later in life usually involves more explicit instruction. In this view, grammar is understood as the cognitive information underlying a specific instance of language productio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.svg "Click for more on -> Argument")
