|
Topicality (policy Debate)
Topicality is a resolution 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. "Interpretation" is a low-level standard argued by high school debaters but not quibbled verbatim, "interpretation", by seasoned debaters beyond college. The difference is between what is said ("text") and what is allowed ("treaty" or "d'accord" or agreement or advocacy, etc.). 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 "an ... [...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 is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single ... [...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 resolution. 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 "Negative block". Agent counterplan In policy de ... [...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 is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single ... [...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. AFF constructive 1 (1AC) a. Cross-examination (by NEG speaker 2) 2. NEG constructive 1 (1NC) :a. Cross-examination (by AFF speaker 1) 4. AFF constructive 2 (2AC) a. Cross-examination (by NEG speaker 1) 5. NEG constructive 2 (2NC) a. Cross-examination (By AFF speaker 2) 6. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 7. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 8. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 9. 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 were half the length of constructive speeches, 8–4 min in high school and 10–5 min in college. The now-prevailin ... [...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 evidence ... [...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 is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a ''plan'' as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Argument
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion. Arguments are intended to determine or show the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion. The process of crafting or delivering arguments, argumentation, 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 form ... [...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 an object language. For example, an interpretation function could take the predicate symbol T and assign it the extension \. All our interpretation does is assign the extension \ to the non-logical symbol T, and does not make a claim about whether T is to stand for tall and \mathrm for Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, an interpretation ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Grammar
In linguistics, grammar is the set of rules for how a natural language is structured, as demonstrated by its speakers or writers. Grammar rules may concern the use of clauses, phrases, and words. The term may also refer to the study of such rules, a subject that includes phonology, morphology (linguistics), morphology, and syntax, together with phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. There are, broadly speaking, two different ways to study grammar: traditional grammar and #Theoretical frameworks, theoretical grammar. Fluency in a particular language variety involves a speaker internalizing these rules, many or most of which are language acquisition, acquired by observing other speakers, as opposed to intentional study or language teaching, instruction. Much of this internalization occurs during early childhood; learning a language later in life usually involves more direct instruction. The term ''grammar'' can also describe the linguistic behaviour of groups of speakers and writer ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Native Americans In The United States
Native Americans (also called American Indians, First Americans, or Indigenous Americans) are the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Indigenous peoples of the United States, particularly of the Contiguous United States, lower 48 states and Alaska. They may also include any Americans whose origins lie in any of the indigenous peoples of North or South America. The United States Census Bureau publishes data about "American Indians and Alaska Natives", whom it defines as anyone "having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America ... and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment". The census does not, however, enumerate "Native Americans" as such, noting that the latter term can encompass a broader set of groups, e.g. Native Hawaiians, which it tabulates separately. The European colonization of the Americas from 1492 resulted in a Population history of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, precipitous decline in the size of the Native American ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
