Term
| [image][image][image]Negative |
|
Definition
| The debaters arguing against the adoption of the resolution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The second negative constuctive speech followed by the first negative rebuttal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The concept that the status quo is effective and beneficial until proven otherwise by the affirmative |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assumptions or facts underlying development of the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The affirmative's proposed method of implementing the resolution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a debate usually with two person teams, on a policy topic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A debate topic concerning the advantages and disadvantages of accepting a certain policy or plan of action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The maximum amount of time to be used by each team between speeches |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The concept that the affirmative must present sufficient evidence and analysis to warrant acceptance of the resolution prior to counter arguments |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A debate topic that argues for determination of fact |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A debate topic that argues for or against a particular course of action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A debate topic that centers on a values of conflict |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Significance which is not necessarily measurable, but which willl improve the quality of a system |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A measurable, numerical form of significance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The second speech given by each speaker in a debate round. The rebuttals are five minutes in a standard debate and four or five minutes in a cross-examination debate. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A method of expanding or enforcing present programs or spending more funds in order to solve the needs or gain an advantage. Repairs are used to show a lack of inherency. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The ability of the affirmative plan to solve the needs or gain the advantages |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The present system of programs, laws, and policies |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A method of examining the debate topic to reveal areas of topicality, harm/significance, inherency, plan-meet-need and plan workability, and disadvantages |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A label or category for evidence or arguments |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The concept that the affirmative case and plan must deal with the subject for debate and prove why the topic should be adopted |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The term for inherency in a comparative advantage case. The status quo must not be capable of obtaining advantages; they must be unique to adoption of the topic |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The reasons why the judge decides to give the decision to one team instead of the other team |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The ability of the affirmative plan to function |
|
|
