Term
| The obligation to prove what one asserts. Applies to both the affirmative and the negative , as any forwarding a claim must provide support sufficient to overcome the natural presumtion against the claim |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The risk of the proposition the obligation of the afirmative in order to evercome the presumption against the proposition to give good and sufficient for accepting the propostion. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the obligation to refute or respond to oppsoing arguments. Applies to both the affirmative and the negative. Failureto fulfill the burden of refutation results in the acceptance of the unrefuted argument |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| A predspostion favoring a given side in a dispute. Describes a psycholigical state in which liteners and decision makers are predsposed to favor or oppose one side of a debate or an argumentative position |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| A statement of judment that identifes the central issue in a controversy. May be a propostion of fact, value nonpolicy, or policy. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Descriptive claims addressing qualities of condition or causation |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Evaluative claims, indentify qualities of relative goodness or badness of a thing or condition |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Advocative claims calling for action and including indentication of an actor and the prescribed act |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| expresses a value judment about policy |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the existing state of things; the present system |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The advocate's supported interpreation of the meaning of the words in the propostion |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The convention in academic policy debate that, for the sake of argument, participants may assume implementation of a reasanble policy.This allows deabets to focus on the question of wheter a policy should be adopted and to avoid as irrelvant arguments about wheter the policy would be adopted. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| critical claims inherent in the propostion. Questions indentifying points of controversy |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Those issues common to most debates on given types of propostions. In value debate they are defintive and desgnative: in policy debbate they include harm, inherency, and solvency |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| A predisposition favoring a given side in a dispute. From the judicial prespective the presumtion favors the stus quo. From the policy perspective the presumtion favors the postion that provides the greatest advanteges while incurring the least disanvantages, In alie debate, the presumption favors the greater over the lesser value |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The stock issue that inentifes an imperfection within the status quo, marked by urgency and characterized by important deleterious consquences of inaction |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The stock issue that identifies a probability for future harm, based in the embeddeness of the harm within the status quo and predicting that absent affirmative policy action, the harm will countinue |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The stock issue that indetifies the ability of the plan to work and to reduce the harm |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The benefits or gains that the affrimative claims will result from adopting its plan, which must be shown to outweig the disanvantges |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In debating a propostion of value case, the meausre of effect in accepting the value or concrete implication of the value |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Sufest that attudes prevent solution of the indefied problem within the status quo |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The affirmative aruges that its plan will produce greater advantages that the stuatus quo |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The standard or the basis upon which a decision is to be made. A major issue in value debate sometimes used in policy debate |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| A factor in Intrinsic if it is embedded within the essetial nature of a thing or is an inherent charactersitic or consquence of the thing |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| A substantial measure of importnace |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the affirmative's method of solving the problems calimed in the justification as needs or harms. Its must produce the advantages claimed by the affirmative |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The compelling nature of a harm as dimished quality of life or denial of some important value. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Numberical, observble, and concrete mesure of the harm |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Demonstrates that hte harm is premanety built into the status quo; consist of law, court, decions that have the force of law and societal strctures |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Converting a negative's disadvantage into an affirmative advantge. In common usage any statement that one turns against the orginator |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The obligation of the negative to refute at least one of the issues of the affirmative. Otherwise that affirmative will prevail, and the obligation of all debaters to reute arguments forwarded by their opponnets or the arguemnt will be considered cogent for the weight of that argument |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| argument by the negative that it may abondon advocacy of the counterplan if certain conditions prevail |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Offensive negative strategy desgned to demonstrate that the needs indentified by the affirmative are not needs but, in fact nenfits to the status quo |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The indesirable conseqquences that the negative claims will flow from the affirmative's plan and is superior policy alternative |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The undesirable consequences that the negative claims will flow from the affirmative's plan. These must be shown to outweigh the adnvantages. |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Disadvanatages that may be applied to a number of possible affirmative plans |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| an argument which challenges the philosophical foundationor applies ethical constructs to the opponet's advocacy and its implications |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| a test of competition of a counterplan offered by the affirmative. The hypothetical illustration of plan and counterplan, or plan and kritic alternative operating together |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Brief versions of arguments to be expanded upon later in the dabate |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The argument that a seemignly harmless proposal in the affirmative's plan would be an irrevesible first step leading inevitably to the most deleterious disadvantages |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| a counterplan that might be used as affirmative plan under some defintions of the resolution but is nontopical with regard to the operational defintion the affirmative has chose to use. Once the affirmative hasd parametrically defined the resolution, al,ost any mutually exclusively plan may consitute grounds for a counterplan |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| The state of comformity to the intent of the debate resolution. A plan is topical if it justifies the full intent of the resolution, the needsare solved, or the comarative advantages are gained as a direct result of the planks in the plan that implement the resolution |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In value debate, the negative arugment that undesirable consequences will flow from adoption of the affirmative's case. Similar to a dsanvantage in policy debate |
|
Definition
|
|
