› Novice Handbook
›Written by Carrollton High School Debaters
Debate is a competitive (and at least incidentally educational) activity, the focus of which is public policy. It is one of the most exciting and beneficial activities one can participate in one's academic career. Be forewarned that it will require of any serious participant a prodigious amount of work and the concession of many free weekends, and many other commitments besides, but the glitzy awards one brings home, if nothing else, make it worthwhile.
So what is debate? More specifically, debates occur in competitive situations between two debate teams, each consisting of a pair of partners, from their two respective schools. The participants give a series of speeches (in regimented order with regimented time limits) in which they present and develop arguments about the merits of particular policies, with the help of evidence extracted from all sorts of researchable literature, and a judge or panel of judges makes a decision as to whose argumentation is superior, and the team advocating the superior policy wins the round. The activity is of course more sublime and subtle than this definition depicts, but it's about all that the layperson really needs to know.
For the potential participant, however, this is far from being the case. There is a specialized form of policy discourse that is unique to debate in its structure and style. The activity requires a unique adaptation of one's speaking and research skills, but before even that can happen there is a substantial amount of theory and terminology that one should understand. The aim of this booklet is to initiate beginning participants into this somewhat esoteric theoretical structure of the activity. A beginning understanding of debate theory will hopefully make one's initial competitive experiences more meaningful and less alienating, for debate is at its base just critical thinking and persuasive speaking, and the activity affords an outstanding opportunity to develop those skills once the opacity of its terminology is overcome.
The two sides; the affirmative
In every debate round, one team is designated as the affirmative team and the other team is designated as the negative team. The affirmative team proposes a policy and argues that if enacted it would correct some myopic aspect of policy in the status quo (that is, the present state of things) and provide a solution to some existing or imminent problem. The policy proposed by the affirmative is known as the plan, and the affirmative's initial arguments as to why the plan solves an important problem comprise what is known as the case. The case and plan are presented in the first speech of the round, which is given by the affirmative, whose subsequent task becomes the defense of the change they have advanced.
The goal of the negative team, on the other hand, is to demonstrate that the affirmative's policy is somehow actually undesirable. Before exploring the various types of arguments that the negative can employ, and the ways in which each team attempts to thwart its opposition, however, we'll look at the forms that affirmative advocacy typically takes on to begin with.
The resolution.
So, one might ask of oneself, just what kind of policy does the affirmative advocate? Fact of the matter is, they don't get to talk about any arbitrary policy they might devise, nor are they handed anything specific. Instead, they get a choice, but a limited one. The limitation of the debate is the function of the resolution, which directs the debate at a specific topic area. The resolution takes the form of a truth-valued statement of public policy which asserts that the government should take some broadly defined course of action. Actual past resolutions of high school debate include:
The federal government should guarantee comprehensive national health insurance to all US citizens.
The federal government should substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to the US
The federal government should substantially change its foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China.
The federal government should establish a policy to substantially increase renewable energy use in the United States.
In a given debate round, the affirmative team attempts to uphold the resolution by picking a specific example of it to defend. For example, under the immigration resolution above, an affirmative team might decide to advocate the US government substantially strengthening regulation of immigration by increasing funding for border patrol efforts. Thus, the resolution limits the debate by forcing the plan to be an example of the broad course of action it prescribes.
A new resolution is established by the debate community each year. Its goal is a fair division of ground between the affirmative and negative sides of the topic, which is to say that the resolution should be broad enough to provide the affirmative with a decent choice of cases yet narrow enough to allow the negative to be well prepared for potential affirmatives. Notice that while resolutions are precisely worded, the topic areas they seek to delineate may be somewhat hazily defined. For instance, what exactly constitutes a "regulation of immigration" or a "substantial" strengthening thereof could be rather debatable. As one might expect, this sometimes leads in debate rounds to mega-debates about what the resolution should be construed to mean precisely in which both sides try to shift the division of ground in their favor through syntactic and semantic manipulation. These arguments manifest themselves in the issue of topicality: an affirmative plan is said to be topical if and only if it is an example of the resolution. (Topicality will be considered in more detail later on.)
The stock issues
Recall that the affirmative is trying to demonstrate three things: that status quo policy is flawed in some respect, that that is causing or is about to cause a problem, and that the plan provides a solution to said problem. This approach to debate is long-standing and virtually universally accepted as an important aspect of the theory of the activity. This traditional itemization of the affirmative's burden of proof is captured by the stock issues. The stock issues traditionally number five -- topicality, inherency, significance, harms, and solvency -- but topicality, as mentioned above, as a purely procedural issue is quite distinct from the others, and significance and harms go hand in hand.
Significance and harms.
Harms, succinctly, are problems. They are the nasty scenarios that the affirmative contends will occur if the status quo is allowed to continue with its reckless ways. The worse the harms are, the more urgent the problem is, and the better for the affirmative; hence the issue of significance, which attempts to measure the importance of the harms.
Solvency.
This is a determinant of the plan's value as an expedient. Solvency is the elimination of the harms by the plan. It is a measure of whether or not, or to what degree, the affirmative policy solves the problem it targets.
Inherency.
Inherency refers to the necessity of resolutional action. It is used to demonstrate that the status quo is incapable of solving the harms without the plan.
Affirmative cases are usually structured around the stock issues. The 1ac, the first speech given in the round, which is prewritten and used to present the case and plan, typically contains an observation or contention devoted to each of the three issues explained above. The harms along with their significance are often presented in the form of advantages, which detail the scenarios claimed by the affirmative.
An example: Consider the inter-country adoption case which was debated under the immigration topic. The plan mandates that any orphan in a foreign country which said country considers eligible for adoption should be granted admission to the US if anybody here wants to adopt him/her. The breakdown of the stock issues is as follows: The case claims as inherency that current immigration policies regarding potential adoptees are too restrictive, so that not all orphans considered eligible for adoption by both their home country and the US can get into the US, leaving many adoptable kids trapped in orphanages worldwide. The harms indicate that the conditions in many of said orphanages range from poor to inhumane and many children suffer from neglect or maltreatment. Thus the advantage is the welfare of the children. The case claims to solve because there are lots of couples in the US interested in adopting internationally and willing to help out, and because the demand for such adoptions currently exceeds the supply of kids, making more orphans available would result in more adoptions, and of course the conditions of living with some nice family over here are much superior to those of rundown orphanages.
Inherency is the stock issue which is usually debated the least. The inherency observation in the case is usually rather brief and is rarely argued by the negative, who is peacefully resigned to the status quo's hopeless lack of propensity to address the kinds of problems that affirmative teams like to. Solvency, on the other hand, is the stock issue that typically receives the most emphasis in a round. Negative teams may argue, depending on the case harms, that the harms are exaggerated or that they are actually good things, but directly attacking the efficacy of the plan most often affords them the best opportunity to mitigate the case.
The stock issues have been traditionally regarded as prima facie burdens, that is, burdens of proof that the affirmative must meet if they are to win the round, but that treatment of the stock issues has been eclipsed by the implementation of the notion of comparative advantage. Most of the time, for instance, the affirmative won't win one hundred percent of the solvency they originally claim, but the negative won't prove that there's absolutely no solvency either. Thus the case can be left partially mitigated yet partially intact, implying that while the advantages may be reduced, plan still provides a comparative advantage over the status quo, which may be trifling or compelling depending on which side has the upper hand in the debate.
Fiat
Notice that all the debate issues that have been discussed focus on whether a given policy ought to be done without regard to the feasibility of actually getting the policy implemented in the real world. This is because a debate round is intended to be a discussion about whether the plan should be done and not whether it would be done. Thus the affirmative can advocate any policy they think might be a good one without concern about whether the government would ever realistically enact it. The premise of the game is that the judge's ballot determines whether the plan will be put into effect or not. This assumption and the power of implementation that the affirmative derives from it are known as fiat. Fiat is generally understood to derive from the word "should" that appears in every resolution; it prevents the debate from devolving into questions of whether Congress would ever accept the plan and forces the debate to be center on questions of value and the desirability of particular policies.
The two sides revisited; the negative
So now you know how the affirmative typically initiates the debate. So how does the negative team, whose responsibility is to negate the affirmative and prove that the plan is an undesirable policy, respond? Well, there are multiple types of arguments they can utilize: they can dispute the claims made by the affirmative in their initial speech (case attacks), argue that the plan is not acceptable because it's not an example of the resolution (topicality), try to prove than the plan has unwanted side effects (disadvantages), or propose an alternative policy they think would be better than the plan (counterplans). The next sections will examine these various types of negative positions.
Disadvantages
The disadvantage (commonly abbreviated "disad" or "DA") is, in a sense, the opposite of an advantage. It is an undesirable effect of plan, as presented by the negative with the implicit idea that the debate should be decided by weighing the good consequences of the affirmative policy against its bad consequences, that is, its advantages versus its disadvantages. A disad, however, is more structured than an advantage: the key to understanding the disadvantage is understanding its parts.
Before examining said parts, however, let's consider an example disadvantage for purposes of subsequent illustration. Namely, consider the spending disadvantage, which has been debated under many topics. Its thesis is that government spending (something mandated by many if not most plans) is a bad thing because it hurts the US economy, causing a depression. It further contends that a depression in the US would drag down the world economy, causing many poverty-stricken countries to embark on wars of desperation.
The link.
The link is what attaches the disadvantage to the affirmative plan. The link explains a feature or a direct effect of plan that causes the disad's scenario to happen. Disadvantages are usually generic positions designed to be run in many rounds; the link is the part that changes from debate to debate. Debaters seek to use specific links -- links that are unique to particular cases -- to make disadvantages more adaptable and usable against more affirmatives.
When the spending disadvantage is argued, its link will be simply the expenditure of money by the affirmative. The negative might briefly explain what aspects of the plan must be financed, or they might have in the way of a specific link some evidence that indicates the plan would be particularly expensive.
The impact.
The impact is the ultimate consequence claimed by a disadvantage. The bigger the impact, the better for the negative; hopefully, it will be more significant than the harms claimed by the case. The impact of spending, as it is of many disadvantages, is war.
Internal links.
Internal links are the consequential steps that are needed to connect the link to the impact, completing the scenario of the disadvantage. Spending, for example, claims as internal links that government spending causes depression and that US depression causes worldwide depression. The link, internal links, and impact together coherently explain a particular recipe for catastrophe, but a disad has a few other components in addition.
Uniqueness.
A consequence being considered in a comparative analysis of two policies should be accrued uniquely by one policy or the other if it is to be weighed in favor of either side. Anything that results equally from both plan and the status quo is irrelevant to the debate: hence the notion of a disadvantage's uniqueness. A disad is said to be unique when it is not occurring in the status quo.
A possible uniqueness story for the spending disad would be that a balanced budget is coming in the status quo and the government is currently cutting back on spending. Thus by introducing an unexpected policy for which no funds have been appropriated, the affirmatively uniquely upsets the balanced budget. The affirmative, on the other hand, could argue that the disad is non-unique because the government just enacted some expensive program in the status quo, which should have caused the impacts, or because the economy is struggling and the US is about to experience a depression anyway.
Brink.
The brink is the point at which a disadvantage can be expected to occur. A disad is said to be on the brink if it's just about ready to happen, so that presumably any little thing could be enough to push us over. The spending disad, for example, could be said to be on the brink of occurring if the economy is on the verge of collapse right now, so that even a small amount of spending would risk causing the disad. Good brink evidence is often hard to come by but can be quite valuable.
Threshold.
The threshold of a disadvantage is closely related to the brink. It describes how large the potential link must be for a policy to cause the disad. For instance, whether an affirmative that spends only one hundred dollars expends a sufficiently large amount of cash to cause the spending disadvantage is a question of the disad's threshold.
Time frame.
The impacts to a disadvantage are said have a time frame that is equivalent to the amount of time that is required for the scenario to play itself out. The time frame is a relatively unimportant part of a disadvantage, but a disad sometimes looks more ominous when it has a quicker time frame than do the case advantages.
Intrinsicness.
Affirmative teams sometimes make intrinsicness arguments against disadvantages, but few people accept them as legitimate. The hypothesis behind intrinsicness responses is that if the plan doesn't necessarily cause the impacts of a disadvantage, that is, if there is some minor repair that could be made to the status quo that would prevent the disad despite the plan, then the plan should still be considered a good policy. Thus the affirmative argues that a disad only occurs because of some myopic aspect of status quo policy that ought to be changed anyway, and they proceed to advocate that change. For instance, an affirmative team could answer a spending disad by saying, "Non-intrinsic: Lower the interest rate to stimulate the economy and avoid a depression." Most people, however, consider this kind of attempted annexation to the affirmative's advocacy to be unfair to the negative.
Counterplans
The previous discussion has presumed that the negative in a given debate is advocating the status quo, that is, arguing that the plan ought not to be implemented and that current policy should be left unchanged. However, this is not the negative's only option. One reason that a policy could be a bad idea is that it precludes the implementation of some other policy that would be on balance preferable. A negative team could easily take this approach to the dejustification of the plan by proposing that some competing policy be enacted instead: hence the notion of counterplans. A counterplan is a policy change presented by the negative that they advocate as a superior alternative to the plan. Like the affirmative, the negative must defend the desirability and legitimacy of the counterplan.
Competition.
When the negative chooses to run a counterplan, they must demonstrate not only that the counterplan is better than the plan: they must demonstrate that the counterplan dejustifies the plan if they are to uphold their burden of proving that the affirmative policy should not be done. This burden is realized through the issue of competition. To show that the counterplan competes with the plan, the negative must show that the counterplan is more desirable than the plan mandates appearing in combination with any of the counterplan's mandates; in other words, they have to prove that the affirmative policy should not be implemented in its entirety under any circumstances.
One potential reason not to do the plan is that it forestalls implementation of the counterplan. This is one aspect of competition exhibited by many counterplans; it is known as mutual exclusivity. Two policies are said to be mutually exclusive if it is logistically impossible for them to coexist. A standard of mutual exclusivity seeks to show that there is a forced choice between the plan and the counterplan. However, mutual exclusivity alone is not a sufficient condition for competition, for the plan might still be done in conjunction with only a portion of the counterplan; it is not a necessary condition either.
However, in order to compete all counterplans must necessarily be net beneficial. Net benefits are advantages that are uniquely accrued by the counterplan, or disadvantages uniquely avoided by the counterplan, which prove that enacting the counterplan alone is the best policy in the debate. The idea behind many counterplans is to find an alternative policy which solves for the case advantages yet avoids a disadvantage which links to the plan; the disad then becomes a net benefit. This means that doing the counterplan alone is the best option, because attempting to do both the plan and counterplan together would still cause the disadvantage. Or, if the counterplan actively accrues an advantage, the negative may argue to provide a net benefit that the plan interferes with the counterplan's solvency somehow and reduces its effectiveness.
An example. Suppose the affirmative plan is to have the federal government in Washington, DC provide comprehensive health care to everyone in the US The negative's strategy might include the federalism disad, which says that health insurance programs have traditionally been a responsibility of the state governments and that implementing a massive health care policy at the federal level would disrupt the delicate federal-state balance of power, causing too much centralization and risking tyranny. If so, then they could also run a counterplan to implement policies similar to the affirmative's through the individual state governments, rather than the federal government, and claim federalism as a net benefit. They could also claim that the states would solve better because the have more experience with health care programs, or because they more available funding, or because state programs would be less bureaucratic, or what have you.
Permutations.
Permutations are arguments used by the affirmative to argue competition. A permutation is a policy: specifically, a combination of the plan with any or all of the mandates of the counterplan. If the affirmative can show that a permutation is just as good as or better than the counterplan, then they prove that the plan is still a justifiable policy since the most desirable option is just to do the plan in conjunction with some aspects of the negative's policy which are completely independent. The negative will have to argue that the permutation is less desirable than the counterplan by itself, e.g. because it doesn't get the full solvency of the counterplan or because a disadvantage can be linked to it.
Topicality of counterplans.
Recall that the resolution is intended to divide ground fairly between the two sides of the debate. Some people believe that, just as the resolution constrains the affirmative's choice of policy, it should also constrain the negative's. That is to say, there are arguments that say that counterplans have to be non-topical, that the negative's burden is to disprove the resolution and that they therefore must advocate a nonresolutional policy. Of course there are arguments for the acceptability of topical counterplans as well. When the negative runs one, they will usually have to defend its theoretical legitimacy. However, there is now a general trend in debate toward greater acceptance of topical counterplans.
Negative fiat.
When the negative supports a change they are, like the affirmative, relying on the power of fiat (the assumption for the purposes of debate that the counterplan will be implemented if the judge votes for the negative). Negative fiat is derived in a manner reciprocal to affirmative fiat: the affirmative gets it because they have to show that something should be done -- the negative gets it because they have to prove it should not, that something else should be done instead. The negative uses fiat for purposes of the dejustification of the plan. However, whereas the resolution usually specifies that the affirmative's agent of action must be the government of the United States, there is no such apparent constraint on the negative's supposed powers. Many people regard attempts to fiat through the governments of other countries or through international organizations like the UN to be unfair and think that the negative's fiat should be reciprocal in its scope to the affirmative's, making counterplans that utilize international actors controversial positions.
Topicality.
Many people consider topicality to be a "dull" argument, and many judges are reluctant to vote on it, but it can sometimes be one's best chance of winning when debating an usual or squirrel case on the periphery of the topic for which one is not prepared.
Topicality arguments, as presented by the negative, have a fairly standard structure. First, the negative presents their interpretation of the topic, based on a definition of a word or phrase in the resolution they think the affirmative fails to meet. Definitions may be either technical in nature -- from a dictionary or legal text, for example -- or contextual. A contextual definition is an example of the word's usage in the topic literature that clearly shows it intended meaning. Definitions should be clear and precise. After the definition comes the violation: the negative explains specifically how the affirmative plan fails to meet their interpretation of the resolution.
Next, the negative presents standards for the evaluation of the topicality debate, which give the judge various ways to compare conflicting definitions. The standards explain why the negative's interpretation is superior semantically or grammatically and arguments. The negative argues that their interpretation provides for a fair division of ground, and that including cases like the affirmative's unlimits the topic and makes it impossible for the negative to be well-prepared.
Lastly, the negative explains why topicality should be a voting issue, that is, why the affirmative should lose the round if they're nontopical. Most reasons commonly given are based on fairness to the negative, who can't be expected to research and prepare for every policy an affirmative team might possibly conceive. The negative might also argue that nontopical cases are outside of the judge's jurisdiction as a policy maker.
The affirmative can respond to topicality arguments by explaining that in actuality they meet the negative's definition, by presenting counter-definitions that provide an alternate interpretation of the resolution, under which the plan is topical, by presenting counter-standards that explain why their interpretation is reasonable and why the negative's is over-limiting, and by arguing that topicality isn't a voting issue. Usually in a topicality debate, the negative seeks to promote a rigorous interpretation while the affirmative seeks to uphold a reasonable interpretation, but the arguments' ultimate resolution frequently depends upon the judge's personal attitude toward topicality arguments and perception of the topic area.
The speech format of debate
There are eight speeches in a debate round, two given by each debater. Each debater has a speaking position that determines which speeches (s)he is responsible for -- the 1a and 2a are speakers for the affirmative side, while the 1n and 2n are the negative debaters. The first four speeches in the round are known as constructive speeches, while the last four are called rebuttals. These are the names of the speeches and the order in which they are given:
1ac 1nc 2ac 2nc 1nr 1ar 2nr 2ar
Each speaker does both a constructive and a rebuttal speech -- the 1a, e.g., gives the 1ac and the 1ar.
The constructive speeches are normally eight minutes in length and the rebuttal speeches are usually five minutes. There is also an additional amount of preparation time for each team, which they can allocate in the round as they wish. Most often, there is either eight or ten minutes of preparation time at a given tournament. However, all time limits are set by the tournament director, so one should generally check the rules as announced either at the tournament or in the tournament invitation.
In a debate round, the constructives are used to present and develop the positions each side hopes to win with. The rebuttals are used by each team to explain the superiority of their arguments versus those of the opponent and convey to the judge why they should win. Notice that the affirmative team gets to speak both first and last -- this advantage is compensated for the negative block, the thirteen minutes of solid negative speaking accounted for between the 2nc and the 1nr.
Cross examination.
After each of the constructive speeches, there is a three minute period known as cross-examination, during which a member of the opposing team gets to quiz the speaker about the arguments in the round. Cross-examination is used for clarification of the opponent's positions, to set up one's own arguments, and to otherwise look like Perry Mason. The 1a, after the 1ac, is cross-examined by the 2n, the 1n is cross-examined by the 1a, the 2a by the 1n, and the 2n by the 2a -- in other words, the person giving the next speech in the round gets to prepare for it while his/her partner conducts the cross-ex.
The Kritik
The kritik is an argument that attacks the assumptions in the round.
The first part of the kritik is usually the argument that "Fiat is illusory." This means that debating is a game, and none of the affirmative plan will actually come true. Therefore, debaters should discuss the real world implications of the debate, i.e. what will actually happen because of the debate, such as the discourse in the round, the mind set after the round, and how the judge's vote will affect how people think about the assumption. (Discourse is the discussion in the round.)
The next part of the kritik points out a specific affirmative assumption. This is referred to as the "fundamental assumption," which the affirmative assumes to be true. The point of the kritik is to challenge this fundamental assumption. This is referred to as the link
The implications of the kritik describe its impact on the round. They explain the negative effects of supporting the assumptions of the plan and tell why the judge should vote against it. The alternative of a kritik is usually either to rethink the flawed assumptions or to abolish a flawed structure.
A typical kritik is STATISM:
A. Fiat is Illusory: see above
B. Link: By acting through the government, the affirmative assumes that the government is good.
C. Implication: The government is a bad thing. It is the root of injustice and social evil, and that by itself destroys rights. The state is a mind set, and voting for the affirmative strengthens this mind set.
D. The alternative: Rethink the mind set that the government is an advantageous agent of action.
GLOSSARY
Four Person--A debate format in which one four man team consists of an Affirmative and a Negative two man team each of which is locked in their respective sides of the resolution.
Two Person--The most common policy format in which each two man team is an individual unit and debates both sides of the resolution.
1NC--Second speech in the debate. Traditionally when the Negative makes its opening set of arguments.
1AC--The first speech in the debate, in which the affirmative initially establishes their advocacy of the resolution by means of a case and plan.
2NC--Last constructive in which the negative responds to affirmative answers.
2AC--Speech in which affirmative is responsible for defending case and attacking the negative positions/scenarios.
Brink--The line that if crossed makes the impacts of the disad scenario occur (i.e. the plan spends 420 trillion dollars which would be enough to collapse the economy and push the US into war.)
Cards--Pieces of cited, published material used to support arguments.
Case--Outlines the flaws in the status quo and explains how advocating their interpretation of the resolution and plan would solve these.
Case Attack--Arguments focusing on the affirmatives case that generally state any of four things.
(1) there is no inherent problem in the status quo; (2) attempting to solve the problems through policy is not worth the risks;(3) the affirmatives plan is incapable of solving; (4) or that the plan exacerbates the problems.
Competition--What makes the negatives policy (counterplan) superior to the affirmative and can not be combined with the affirmative in an advantageous way.
Counterplan--An alternative policy provided by the negative.
Conditionally--A stipulation on the counterplan that allows for the argument to be dropped out of the round.
Cross-X--The time between speeches when you ask questions and clarify arguments.
Tag-Team or Open Cross-X--Where both members of the questioning team are free to ask the questions and both the members of the team being questioned can answer the questions.
Deontology-- The belief that some actions are justified, regardless of their consequences, because they are morally correct.
Disadvantage(Disad)--An argument that outlines the scenario triggered by the affirmatives policy that results in bad things.
Effects Topical--An argument that states that the plan on face (as it reads) isn't topical but only achieved topical results through a number of steps.
Extra Topical--An argument that states that the affirmative claims an advantage that falls outside of the resolution.
Extend An Argument-- To bring up a specific argument that was made in a previous speech.
Fiat--The power of implementation allows for assumption that the policy will be passed which allows for the "should" instead of the "would" debate. It allows the debaters to debate the merits of the policy.
Flow--Note-taking in the round. ( i.e. the tag , author and the year)
Framers intent--Argument that the affirmative is not doing what the resolution writers intended
Generic--A non-specific that applies more to the resolution than anything specific in the round
Harms--The bad things that will occur or will not be prevented from occurring if the Affirmative's policy is not implemented
Impact--The ultimate "bad thing" that the disad scenario results in ( i.e. the collapse of the economy due to aff. spending results in war).
Implication--The "impact/warrant" of an argument.
Inherency--The part of the Affirmatives case that outlines the inadequacies in the status quo.
Internal link--The part of the scenario that ties the link to the impact.
Intrinsic--A factor in the status quo that will prevent the scenario form occurring.
Kritique--A negative/affirmative (primarily used by the negative) argument that indicates the affirmative framework and assumptions of the plan is being fundamentally flawed and thus should be rejected.
Link--The part of the Affirmative's policy that would initiate the disad scenario.
Mutually Exclusive--Cannot do plan and counterplan together in any combination.
Negative Block--The portion of the debate round that consists of the 2NC and the 1NR consecutively.
Net Beneficial--The counter plan has compelling reason to be implemented instead of the affirmative's case.
Observations--Disads, Topicality, Counterplans, or any other argument not run specifically on case.
Oral critique--Time after the round for the judge to give tips for improvement and evaluates the round.
Off Case--an argument that does not directly refute the stock issues(inherency, harms, solvency, or significance). An off case includes issues like topicality, disads, counterplans, and critiques.
Pairing-Schematic--A listing of who debates who, which team is affirming and negating the resolution, the judge for the round, and the location in which the debate will take place.
Paradigm--The method of evaluation that the judge uses to assess the round.
Permutation--An Affirmative response to the counterplan claiming that there is nothing preventing both policies from being enacted in any combination. The affirmative can choose to advocate this as a policy option or as just a test of competition.
Plan--The Affirmative's specific course of action, usually outlined in planks.
Plan Spike--A specific plank or a mandate of plan intended to pre-empt a link or another Negative argument ( I.E. plan mandates that a tax be created to fund plan and thus avoid a spending link. ).
Prep--Preparation Time. (8-10 per round)
Punt/Kick--To drop an argument out of a round.
Prelims--Rounds that everyone participates in, usually 4 to 7.
Qualifications-Quals--What makes the author a legitimate reference, I.E. degrees, positions, titles, or profession.
Real World--An argument that the round should be evaluated from a "real world" point of view.
Solvency--The part of the case that explains how the policy will rectify the problems in the status quo.
Spread--A strategy intended to induce the other team to spend a lot of time on a lot on a myriad of responses instead of developing several arguments well.
Standards--an explanation of why a definition or interpretation is superior.
Status Quo--The condition of some abstract interpretation of a magical objective reality.
T--A term that is short for topicality
Threshold--How much of the link is needed to initiate the disad scenario ( I.E.: how much money has to be spent ).
Time Frame--How long it takes for the impacts to occur once the scenario has been initiated.
Topicality--A negative argument that states that the affirmative's case and plan doesn't meet a word in the intent of the resolution.
Topic Area--The problem addressed by the resolution.
Turn--An argument that states that the impacts will not happen in the status quo, but the case will either (1) prevent the impact from occurring or (2) prove that the impact occurring would be a good thing.
Uniqueness--The component of the disad scenario that explains what is preventing the scenario from occurring in the status quo ( I.E. the economy is good right now and deficit spending is decreasing).
Utilitarianism--The evaluation method that evaluates the over all good and bad effects of the situation.
Voting Issue--An argument claimed to be the pinnacle issue in the round and the round should be evaluated on that issue