Vocabulary for An Introduction to Policy Debate by Christy Shipe
Terms in this set (49)
The fourth and final element of a plan-meet-need case, in which the affirmative shows how its plan solves the harms of the status quo.
The team that affirms the resolution. In policy debate, it is the team that must perform the action called for in the resolution by proposing a plan for change.
A plank of the affirmative plan that identifies the governmental body or bodies needed to enact and administer the plan.
The process of organizing evidence into logical categories. All of the pieces of evidence that deal with one particular aspect of the debate topic are organized into an evidence block, either on sheets of paper in a file folder or on labeled index cards in a card box.
Burden of Proof
A burden that rests on the affirmative team to prove the case for change. Some theorists believe that the negative team also has a burden of proof if it chooses to present a counterplan.
Burden of Rebuttal
A burden that rests on the negative team once the affirmative team has met its burden of proof.
Comparative Advantages Case
An affirmative case type that focuses on the benefits of the affirmative plan rather than on the harms of the status quo.
The first four speeches in a policy debate, in which each member of each team is given the chance to construct his or her arguments for the debate round.
The negative plan for change that provides an alternative to the affirmative plan but remains opposed to the resolution.
The process of a questioner eliciting answers from a respondent. This process follows each Constructive Speech.
Based on mathematical structures; involves the process of reasoning from universal statements (or premises) that lead to certain truth when the structures are properly followed.
Usually the first element of the affirmative case, in which the affirmative offers dictionary definitions for the key terms of the resolution in an effort to define the topic for the round.
Negative arguments that point out the harmful effects of adopting the affirmative plan. The disadvantage must be linked directly to the affirmative plan, be uniquely caused by the affirmative plan, and have a negative impact.
A rare occurrence in debate in which the judge does not award the ballot to either team.
A plank of the affirmative plan that explains how the government will ensure that its new laws will be followed and what will be done if the laws are disregarded.
Affirmative arguments that reach beyond the scope of what the resolution requires the affirmative team to do.
The theoretical power that allows affirmative debaters to assume that their plan for change would actually be adopted by the governmental authorities named in the resolution.
A method of note taking in which the notes for each speech in the debate are written in parallel columns so that the flow of argumentation can be followed throughout the round.
A plank of the affirmative plan that explains the amount of money needed to enact the plan and how that money will be raised.
The second element of a plan-meet-need case, in which the affirmative outlines the significant harms inherent within the status quo that justify adopting the action called for in the resolution
The process of reasoning from particular observations of the world to discover probable universal truths. The scientific method and opinion polls are examples of inductive logic.
A policy stock issue. The affirmative team must show that there is an inherent need for change.
An argument that violates the rules of logic.
A plank of the affirmative plan consisting of the specific laws that would need to be adopted in order to implement the plan for change.
Small changes that the negative team argues can be made to the status quo in order to mitigate the harms the affirmative team claims exist.
The team that negates the resolution by opposing the affirmative's plan for change and defending the status quo.
Arguments that do not affirm the resolution.
A crucial element of any affirmative case, in which the affirmative outlines the practical steps it will take to change the status quo as required by the resolution.
An affirmaive case type that focuses on solving harms created by the status quo.
A certain amount of prep time is given to each team to prepare a response to the speech it has just heard from the opposing team.
A theory based on the observation that people tend to presume in favor of what they already know and resist change.
Prima Facie Case
A complete case that adequately covers all of the stock issues.
The final four speeches in policy debate in which each member of each team is given the chance to refine his or her arguments in light of the constructive speeches.
The topic of the debate. Debate topics are worded in a parliamentary style and begin with the word 'resolved'. For example, 'Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly reform its policy toward Russia'.
A policy stock issue. The affirmative team must provide a significant reason to adopt its case for change. In a plan-meet-need case, affirmatives prove significance by showing that the status quo is creating significant harms that must be remedied by the change called for in the resolution. In a comparative advantages case, affirmatives seek to prove that their case produces significant advantages when compared to the status quo.
A policy stock issue. In a plan-meet-need case, the affirmative plan must solve the significant, inherent harms identified in the status quo. In a comparative advantages case, the affirmative plan must produce significant advantages over the status quo.
A Latin phrase that literally means "the state in which," used to describe the way things currently exist. In policy debate, the status quo usually refers to the current government policy that the affirmative team plans to change.
The debater's 'stock and trade'. The issues that are most likely to come up in every debate round: topicality, inherence, significance, and solvency. The policy stock issues are based on answering the questions most people will ask before being willing to make a policy change. The affirmative team has the burden to answer those questions in the debate round, since it is the team advocating change.
A label used to easily identify evidence in debate. A tag, or tagline, is a short summary statement that captures the essence of a quotation so that it can be easily remembered. Each piece of debate evidence should have a tag.
A policy stock issue. The affirmative team's case for change must perform the action called for in the debate resolution, or topic. Every element of the affirmative case must affirm the resolution.
Created by Stephen Toulmin, a Britishphilosopher, to explain the rational construction of everyday arguments. The six parts of the Toulmin model are: claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifications, and conditions of rebuttal.
A form of debate that centers on some kind of government policy reform, for example, that the United States federal government ought to significantly reform its energy policy. Affirmative debaters advocate a specific plan for changing government policy while negative debaters, in general, defend a position of no change.
A form of debate that centers on a clash of values. A sample resolution might be: When in conflict, national security ought to be valued more highly than individual liberty. Debaters try to prove that one value ought to be weighed more highly than another, or that both are of equal weight. Although value debate has policy implications, it does not advocate specific courses of action.
A style of debate in which two teams made up of individuals each compete against each other. One team takes the affirmative position in the round and the other takes the negative position. In many debate leagues, team debate is reserved for policy topics.
Stock Issues Judges
Judges who evaluate the round according to the stock issues. They usually decide in favor of the team that makes the best arguments on the issues of topicality, significance, inherence, and solvency.
Tabula Rasa Judges
Judges who have no preset theory of decision making (other than that their mind is a "blank slate," tabula rasa in Latin, upon which the debaters can write their arguments). They tend to be former debaters who enjoy hearing a good argument on the meaning and value of debate theory itself.
Speech Quality Judges
Judges who evaluate the round based on the quality of speaking skills displayed in the round. High-quality speakers are usually more understandable and, as a result, more persuasive.
Points based on speaking skill that are awarded to each individual in each preliminary round. Speaker points are awarded in six categories (persuasiveness, organization, delivery, evidence, cross-examination, and refutation) with a maximum of five points in each category (for a maximum score of 30 points). Points are used to break ties and to tabulate individual speaker awards.
An optional element of the affirmative case that provides a framework for the round by creating criteria that the affirmative team must meet in order to win the round. These criteria do not replace the stock issues but help establish concrete guidelines for determining when the resolution has been affirmed.