Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Debate > Finals > Flashcards

Finals Flashcards

1
Q

Debate

A

Argument with rules that ensure both sides have equal opportunity to present positions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the steps in a forensic progression?

A

1-settle through discussion
2-more formal persuasive speeches are presented
3-formal discussion with rules and an outside third party arbitrator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Affirmative

A

Argues in favor of a resolution or topic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Negative

A

Argues against a resolution or topic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Resolution

A

The topic of the debate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the types of resolutions?

A

Problem, Fact, Value, Policy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Proposition of problem

A

Used to address a controversial issue and generate solutions. (current, no loaded language, open ended, doesn’t require the group to agree on moral questions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Proposition of fact

A

Can be proven true or false

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Proposition of value

A

One belief or idea is better than another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Proposition of policy

A

Broad, complex, and concerning current problems facing our country and the world. Call for change in the current policy of a controversial issue with evidence on both sides.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the team roles in the legal model of debate?

A

Affirmative is the prosecution with the burden of proof, Negative is the defense with the presumption of innocence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the role of a constructive speech?

A

Introduce arguments and positions of the speaker

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the role of a rebuttal speech?

A

Review and extend the constructive issues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the structure of a policy debate?

A

1st Aff, Neg, 2nd Aff, Neg, each 8 minutes long and followed by a 3 minute cross examination
1st Neg, Aff, 2nd Neg, Aff, each 5 minutes long

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Argumentation

A

The formal process of presenting evidence in debate-3 steps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the steps of argumentation?

A

Data, Warrant, Claim, Reservation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Data

A

Evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Warrant

A

Reasoning-logical explanations that tie evidence to the argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Claim

A

Conclusion-Need to change the status quo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Reservation

A

Rebuttal-Arguments against the data, warrant, and claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are the tests of evidence?

A

Relevance, sufficiency, recency, consistency, accessibility, studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Inductive reasoning

A

Going from a specific instance to a general conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Deductive Reasoning

A

Going from a generally accepted claim to a specific instance to prove that what is true in a general sense also applies to a specific instance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Syllogism

A

A major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What are the tests of inductive reasoning?
Enough examples presented? Examples are typical? Conclusion allows for exceptions?
26
What are the tests for syllogism?
Major premise true, minor premise true, major and minor premise relate to eachother
27
Sign
A way of reaching a logical conclusion based on physical evidence
28
Analogies
Comparisons, can be literal or figurative
29
What is the test for analogies?
The things being compared must be similar enough to make a valid conclusion
30
Cause-Effect
One thing causes another-different from a correlation/coincidence
31
What are the tests for cause effect reasoning?
One thing must actually be related to the other, and that the effect is actually caused by the cause
32
What are the fallacies?
Appeals to popular opinion, Hasty Generalization, Ad Hominem, Slippery Slope, Equivocation
33
Fallacy
A false or mistaken idea based on faulty reasoning
34
Appeals to popular opinion
Something should be supported because everyone is supporting it
35
Appeals to tradition
We have always done it this way, so the status quo should be maintained
36
Hasty Generalization
Jumping to conclusion
37
Ad Hominem
"Against the man" Discounting expert testimony without valid reason
38
Slippery Slope
Taking one measure, which might be desirable, will result in other measures that are not desirable, so the first measure should be rejected
39
Equivocation
Some people use the same words differently, a piece of evidence can mean something other than the way it is presented
40
Flowing
System of taking notes during a debate
41
Flow sheet
The paper on which notes are taken
42
Affirmative case parts
Rationale and plan
43
Rationale
Reason or reasons for adopting a resolution, usually presented as observations, contentions, or advantages
44
Plan
The affirmative proposal for putting the resolution into effect. Should solve needs or gain advantages
45
Status quo
The present system of laws, programs, policies etc.
46
Should and should/would
The proposed change should be adopted, not that it will be | The negative argues that the aff. team's plan won't be passed
47
Fiat
"Let it be done" The affirmative can argue that whether or not the plan would be passed it should be accepted in the debate
48
Burden of Proof
The affirmative team is obligated to show why the status quo is not working using evidence
49
Prima Facie Case
"On the face of things" The affirmative must provide evidence and reasons so that the judges and listeners will accept their position on face value
50
Issues
Important questions and considerations-Basis for structuring the affirmative case
51
Stock Issues
Fundamental requirements of a debate-Topicality, Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Disadvantages
52
Topicality
The plan and evidence must fall within the scope of the topic
53
Extra topicality
A solution to the problem which is outside the scope of the problem
54
Plan spikes
Additions to the plan that explain things like funding or enforcement
55
Effects topicality
When the resolution requires substantial change, and the plan provides minimal change. The plan includes something other than what is prescribed by the topic, but it has the effect of producing what the topic calls for
56
Harms
Show a problem with the status quo that must be significant enough to cause a change
57
Quantitative significance
Presented in measurable numeric form
58
Qualitative significance
Not measurable, but shows how the quality of a system is effected
59
Future significance
Something that will need to be solved in the future
60
Inherency
The status quo can't be enough to fix the problem-Comes from a poor structure or lack of structure. Money is not a barrier
61
Attitudinal inherency
The attitudes rather than the structures cause the problems, and attitudes cannot be eliminated
62
Uniqueness
If the status quo can also gain advantages, the case has no inherency or uniqueness
63
Solvency
The affirmative plan must be capable of solving the problem and can't create serious workability problems
64
Disadvantages
The plan should not create new disadvantages, and the advantages should not be outweighed by disadvantages
65
Paradigms
Models or ways of viewing the world
66
Tabula Rosa
Blank slate, debaters argue the merits of their case and also the paradigm from which they should be judged
67
Need plan case
The basic two part case, made of the rationale and the plan
68
Add-ons
Added plan benefits that may address solvency issues or list additional advantages
69
Timing of add-ons
First speech: Development of the plan affected | Second speech: Time left form refutations is reduced
70
Overviews
Off-case arguments, The first negative uses them to start with a preview of the negative case
71
Underviews
Summarize the negative position at the end of the first neg. constructive
72
Negative Topicality
The neg. argues that the aff. does not meet topicality, which is often related to the aff. definition of terms
73
Negative significance/harms
The Aff. team must prove a significant reason for change, so the neg. should argue the significance of each point the aff. presents
74
Negative inherency
The neg. argues by illustrating how the present system is already addressing the need or advantage without the resolution
75
Minor Repairs
Although the status quo is not perfect, it only needs minor repairs.
76
Alternative Causalities
Prove that the Aff. reasons for a harm are not the only ones.
77
Plan justification
Does the aff. rationale justify the particular plan?
78
Over and under justification
Over-Calling for more action than the plan provides | Under-Doing more than what is justified by the rationale
79
How to attack Solvency
Question the feasibility of the aff. proposal
80
How to attack Funding
Routinely ask how much the proposal will cost
81
How to attack Enforcement
Can you detect violations? Is there incentive to circumvent the plan's intent?
82
How to attack Disadvantage
Illustrate the disadvantages of the plan outweigh any advantage the plan might produce
83
Linear disadvantages
The more you have of a particular situation, the more disadvantage occurs
84
Brink disadvantages
The affirmative proposal is the brink that ultimately leads to catastrophe
85
Thesis of a disadvantage
Link-Aft. plan takes action that links to the DA Uniqueness-The DA does not occur under the status quo Brink-The action taken by aff. is enough to upset status quo and plunge us into trouble Effects-The sequence of events the aff. causes with plan Weight- The DA is strong enough to outweigh the advantages
86
Where did cross examination debating debut?
University of Oregon, 1924

Debate (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions