Lingo / Vocab

Question 1

On-Case Args

Answer 1

PMC Constructive + Extensions - Advantages of Plan

Question 2

Off-Case Args

Answer 2

Neg Advocacies that aren’t rebuttals of Aff args - Disads, CP, K, Topicality, Theory

Question 3

Counterplan

Answer 3

Off-Case arg that is a counterproposal action to solve Harms of Aff’s case and is better than Plan (Net-Benefits!) - Many types of CP, they can go outside the bounds of the Resolution

Question 4

Alternative

Answer 4

Philosophy or non-policy action that the Neg team proposes, alternative to the SQ that aligns with a critical argument (solves for harms of DA)

Question 5

Disadvantage

Answer 5

Off-Case argument that shows negative consequences if Plan passes

Question 6

Topicality

Answer 6

Off-Case argument that shows how Aff plan does not fit with bounds/topicality of resolution (doesn’t discuss the topic of the resolution)

Question 7

Theory

Answer 7

On or Off-Case argument saying the other team did something harmful for the debate, so they should lose

Question 8

Kritik

Answer 8

Off-Case philosophical argument saying that the assumptions of the Aff plan / the Resolution is harmful. Pre-fiat alternative (args must be resolved before discussing what the plan does) is better

Question 9

Stock Issues

Answer 9

Args to determine if Action/Advocacy meets burden of proof. Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Significance

Question 10

Burden of Proof

Answer 10

Proof that the action needs to happen

Question 11

Solvency

Answer 11

Args that show the advocacy solves issues it claims to solve (Ex: How Plan solves Resolution)

Question 12

Harms

Answer 12

Negative consequences of sticking with SQ

Question 13

Status Quo / Inherency

Answer 13

Current state of events related to topic. Legislation, general attitude, etc. Things that might effect actions debated on.

Question 14

Topicality

Answer 14

Args that determine if the action is within the bounds of the topic (within what the resolution has us discuss). Plans are assumed to be topical unless Neg proves otherwise

Question 15

Significance

Answer 15

Level of worth of the topic/issue being debated

Question 16

Parametricize

Answer 16

Aff narrows down topic [area] to make the debate managable

Question 17

Empirical Data

Answer 17

Proven through examples

Question 18

Fiat

Answer 18

Assumption that Plan/CP will be implemented if judge votes for that team. Focuses debate on if plan should happen rather than if it would happen

Question 19

Post-Fiat

Answer 19

Args that come from implementation of the plan (Ads and Disads)

Question 20

Pre-Fiat

Answer 20

Args that have to be resolved before implementation of plan can be considered (Topicality, Theory, Kritiks)

Question 21

Conditional Advocacy

Answer 21

Neg can kick out of advocacy at any time
(Aff responds with Condo Bad)

Question 22

Unconditional Advocacy

Answer 22

Neg cannot kick out of Advocacy
(Aff responds with offense against Advocacy)

Question 23

Dispositional Advocacy

Answer 23

Neg can kick out of Advocacy unless certain conditions occur (“If aff turns our argument or run theory”)
(Aff responds with Dispo Bad, which is the same as Condo Bad)

Question 24

Kick

Answer 24

Not going for an argument in the debate (must provide reason why it shouldn’t be weighed)

Question 25

Prima Facia (at face)

Answer 25

Plan text, Inherency, and Solvency introduced by PMC/LOC are binding, and should not be changed. Evaluated "on face"

Question 26

Framework

Answer 26

Preferred criteria or lens used to evaluate the round. Established structure of round and how judge should decide winner (Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability)

Question 27

Role of the Ballot

Answer 27

How judge should vote in the round, and why they should vote that way. Ballot almost always decides who the winner is, but it can include creating an underlying message through the ballot

Question 28

Mutual Exclusivity

Answer 28

Reasons we can't pass plan and negative advocacies at the same time. Passing one prohibits the other

Question 29

Permutation

Answer 29

Aff argument that combines advocacies of Aff and Neg. Challenges Mutual Exclusivity, showing that Neg Advocacies are not Mutually Exclusive

Question 30

Value

Answer 30

Lens to evaluate / compare two competing ideologies/objects (Aff vs. Neg) - Identifies what quality we are debating and how it makes one thing better than another

Question 31

Value-Critereon

Answer 31

Metric to determine whether value has been met and to what degree