2716:, although not an oft-cited in-round debate practice, is an advanced technique that wagers the other side will lose resources comparatively, on comparable or noncomparable resources. An Affirmative Pocket Turn gets a boost in solvency, or captured advantage, at least over the status quo without any thought to the Negative. If the Affirmative is running a plan to save lives, and there are X number of dying persons in the status quo, the Negative's unwillingness to challenge the Affirmative's plan solvency directly is a pocket turn for the Affirmative, the Negative achieving some other goal that is considered not a comparable turn on Affirmative's Solvency, which is implementing the resolution. For example, if the Negative saves trillions of trees (by increasing employment) for later generations but more and more persons are dying of disease right now, the Affirmative plan to save many people (by increasing affordable physical exercise) who can later plant trees, would easily win. A pocket turn can win on arguing whose priority is more advantageous even if both sides win their plans independently. Likewise with comparable resources, an Affirmative plan that touts spending now is better than relying on credit loans later can achieve advantages over the status quo and even over the Negative plan.
2396:. A good solvency mechanism will have a solvency advocate: a qualified professional or credible expert specifically advocating the proposed course of action, who are cited by the debaters. After the First Affirmative Constructive speech (1AC), it is assumed that the Affirmative team can completely solve all of their harms unless the speaker did not complete Solvency. Solvency can be reduced or undermined by certain arguments, e.g. corruption will prevent the plan from being implemented to the extent necessary to completely solve the harms. A disadvantage argument (as opposed to an advantage argument) might change from one stock issue to solvency, one of which could be a Disadvantage, No Link between plan and Solvency, and many more arguments. If the Negative team can prove that the effects of the plan make the harms worse than they are in the current situation, then the Affirmative team cannot guarantee positive benefits and therefore no reason exists as to why the plan should be adopted. That is so because the stock issue of Inherency prefers to give weight to the status quo, in which a plan disadvantage that is no better or worse than the status quo would be a waste of time compared to not changing the status quo.
839:(those chastising the affirmative for using inappropriate or meritless language). The team making a pre-fiat argument will argue that the pre-fiat argument should be evaluated before any other argument in the round, or at least is an important major plank that has to be supported throughout the round. This is also what makes Topicality a "voter" issue, as exploitation (and other debate theory arguments) are pre-fiat. However, it is incorrect in academic policy debate, to argue Topicality is related to fiat, which it is not. It is credible, however, to make the realignment requirement an argument, that status quo corruption working against plan feasibility is unique to the resolution or plan not addressed by the Harms plank. For example, in a resolution calling for "should substantially reduce tax rates", the Affirmative can be topical by ousting the mafia from all Affirmative plans linked from the resolution. Rather than arguing fiat, the Negative can give direct clash by arguing advantage-turn into disadvantage against Affirmative Solvency, by presenting evidence that the lackluster
2344:
the ontological completeness of the
Solvency to get rid of the dirty bomb, going beyond deterring use of the bomb, is of greater Significance. In Push Debate, the Harms in the status quo has a huge impact potential but not currently, which makes the plan opportune and worthwhile: they have to avoid the Inherent harms as all-or-nothing. Conversely, in debate from Vying, Significance helps debaters consider a resolution topic more meaningfully and not only about plans. A "dirty, cheap" Harm such as a single microchip in a spy satellite has greater impact currently than its removal, in which the Solvency seems so insignificant. However, the sheer amount of work and money in vying for preserving the status quo is the all-for-nothing Harms, and to make the removable of the spy satellite microchip seem insignificant with respect to the status quo makes the plan Solvency highly unique, highly significant, the "QED - quite easily done" simple task. The more delay on Solvency, the more the Harms grow while appearing insignificant. Successful removable, as Solvency, is everything.
2355:, and one can argue that Significance has been subsumed by the option for the Negative team to argue nontopicality on that word against the Affirmative team, then the Negative would lose on the stricture against permuting. In Push Debate, topicality does not need extraordinary defense nor flimsy probing, and the traditional stock issue Significance is preserved if nothing could be done about Inherency that would be nontopical. The difference is between saying "our plan is significantly (or substantially) topical because it is a specific implementation of the resolution", which does not mean much other than it is minimal in terms of Grounding, and "our plan's solvency is significant (or substantial)", which is what judges are looking for about plans and the resolution in the "benevolent debate" that is not bogged down in wordiness.
1137:
Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the
Affirmative either. For example, in-round, if in Year A the resolution says "substantially change" and many teams have already debated that, and in Year B the resolution says "substantially increase", on the same topic, the winning debates in Year A already have many winning arguments that can be presented in Year B. Another example, on-topic, if in Year A many winning teams have supported revolution (revolutions are less bloody than nuclear war), but in Year B there are teams running counterarguments against revolution, the reasons why supporting revolutions is a winning advantage is still difficult to thwart in one's advocacy that does not include revolution.
1133:
Affirmative with merit, for example, for merely attempting to run a plan on the resolution, which prima facie fulfills the resolution in a particular case, the plan. There are
Affirmative positions that support the resolution without running a plan, and they tend to do so on Inherency only, a powerful strategy. Negative Inherency tends to strategize how one ought to vote about the resolution, accepting that the terms of the debate is fair but that the resolution ought to be defeated. Just as stock issue debate does not require the Affirmative to run a plan, stock issue debate does not require the Negative to completely defeat the Affirmative but merely negate the resolution on lack of justifiability, or Negative Justification.
2335:
Significance goes toward
Solvency and is weighed against Inherency, not Harms, that there is unknown danger in change (for example, from deterrence to deproliferation). In that way, the "benevolent debate" is preferred, giving good standing to the Affirmative, and so "any plan that is preferable to the status quo is significant", which is a misunderstanding, better considered as "any plan that is preferable to the status quo is unique", with very few exceptions. But it also exposes the Affirmative to diminution of good standing, in which the Negative counterplan can win on Solvency by being better than unique - as a matter of Significance -
786:"Infinite" or "durable fiat" – the degree to which an ideal, or "fiated", action is considered feasible. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that is different from policy debate.
522:'s vote stands for or is intended to affirm. For example, a team might say "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever saves more lives in third world countries". The opposing team might say "role is irrelevant and the debate rewards the best arguments, not the simulations". The difference between a vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly.
1413:: Judges who have little to no experience in debate, and isn't familiar with the terminology or format of the activity. On the other hand, experienced judges may set a low threshold of persuasion for the debaters, such as the "naive judge" or the "layman judge" or the "teenager". That is, if the debaters cannot persuade somebody who has never heard of the topic but can understand standard speech and enjoys listening to a good debate, then too much "debate-tease", debate jargon, diminishes persuasion needed to win the round of debate.
801:: if United States troops are sent to a foreign country, the majority political party that was pro-deployment will not be re-elected and cannot sustain their military objectives, the quagmire argument. It does not matter who is in power and their party affiliation, it matters that whosoever is in power already can benefit from the plan, if that is the argument. Usually, Affirmative plans are not about re-electing officials but are honed toward nonelected groups and other countries who are beneficiaries of the plan.
1115:: Perhaps the strangest of the four, this claims that the plan won't be implemented simply because there is no reason it would be. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government makes playing the board game Monopoly illegal. It may be possible to prove this plan to be a good idea; however, it is inherent and won't happen simply because it hasn't and probably won't. Existential Inherency also means that the Plan is already in action, therefore, there's no reason to implement it.
1109:: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government eliminates all immigration laws concerning Mexico. This plan is inherent because the general attitude of Americans is that such increases in immigration would increase unemployment. Although an "attitude" is not part of speech communication, and the correct rubric is "Essential inherency", most debate schools still refer to the phenomenon as "attitudinal".
422:
not have, giving the judge a reason to vote for the team reading it rather than the team with the original proposal. Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for the negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of the
676:
actually, the plan would prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse is crucial to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, the affirmative is now arguing that the plan will cause nuclear war. While either of these arguments alone turns the disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would cause nuclear war.
240:
793:, there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about classification methods and clearances. Significance can be argued that capturing the status quo's intrinsic means gives a Solvency boost without the destabilization that would result in other harms or the same status quo harms. Intrinsic means grants justification of status quo capabilities but none of its inherency vis-a-vis the resolution.
2533:
2410:
2240:
2138:
1964:
1843:
1723:
1630:
1529:
1428:
1283:
1151:
959:
858:
615:
458:
302:
35:
783:"Normal means" – going through the same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team.
1407:: Will decide the winner of the round based on the strategy employed by the debaters, as they see debate as an activity about one or more theories. Each side of the debate inevitably follows a theory, whether mentioned or not in-round by the debaters, and the judge weighs competing theories as to which one was best promoted that deserves to win.
933:. These problems are cited as actual (occurring presently outside the activity of the debate round in the status quo). Harms are different from threats, which are potential harms (not currently occurring in the status quo, but with the possibility of occurring in the future). In the case of potential harms, the policy offered by the
2339:
the
Affirmative accumulates Harms by not knowing what they were doing, and that is what makes the Negative counterplan Solvency significant and unique, not because the Harms are unique but because the Harms are less significantly unique overall after Solvency, and that is not an equivocation of words
2081:. Alternate use time can be used for cross-examination or preparation in any amount the team desires at any time during the speech. Generally tournaments using alternate use time will have more time than tournaments using preparation time because it is used for both cross examination and preparation.
2052:
which proposes to do the affirmative plan with a different agent, and exclusionary counterplans which exclude part of the affirmative plan, are not monolithic but segmented or incremental. For example, if the affirmative plan was to "Pass the farm bill" a segmented plan would be to "Pass parts A and
1121:
Despite the classification of these four as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become a non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and
1049:
declaring that the purported increase in state power that the plan creates is bad because it unduly exercises power and forces citizens into doing things that they would not choose to do otherwise might be impact turned by first mitigating the harm the state does and then saying that other things the
944:
A Negative strategy that does not give direct clash to the
Affirmative plan argues against the resolution's hidden harms without arguing against the plan, the unmasking harms strategy that helps the underprepared Negative team who do not have much experience with the Affirmative plan's details. This
940:
As is so often the case in academic debate, the bigger the harms, the bigger the impacts. For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets. It has also been argued that "small things can have big impacts", giving a boost
421:
that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent. For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to
Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." This would solve the original proposal with a net benefit the plan does
2343:
For example, the
Solvency that is bigger than the status quo Harms starts from the presumption that "small things have big impacts, such as a suitcase plutonium dirty bomb". Unlike most plans that add something to the status quo's affairs, nuclear weapons are a threat merely by their existence, but
1136:
In policy debate, failing
Historical Inherency is a sure way for the Affirmative to not win the debate round. If something has already been done, the outcome is known, regardless whether the phenomenon of the results still exist in the status quo or has somehow returned. Likewise, arguments by the
776:
Because of the presumption of fiat, enactment is considered the same as enforcement, which is quite different from merely ratification or adoption of the resolution. Presumption grants that the agency, such as
Congress, are sincere and diligent civil servants who do not quibble over the plan as any
675:
It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. For example, a negative team might read a disadvantage saying that the plan will collapse the economy, and that economic collapse causes nuclear war. An affirmative would double turn the disadvantage by saying that
2334:
However, there are known flaws in otherwise adequate theories of debate that sees Significance as eternally coupled with Harms, which is untrue. In values debate, a "Significance" is a judgment about any crucial aspect of the team's debate outline, and Topicality is secondary to the Stock Issues.
2225:
At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write 'topic papers' discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Once a topic is chosen, it is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season. The resolution typically is related to a course of
1510:
A link turn requires that the affirmative win that there is no uniqueness (Uniqueness says that the disadvantage will not occur in the status quo). In the above example, in order to link turn effectively, the affirmative would need to win that the economy would collapse. Otherwise, the Negative can
1268:
During a debate speech, the interlocutor is the judge or panel of judges. The speech is fluid, without interruptions, and must not ask the judge to respond. The debater is speaking to the judge, not inquiring anything of the judge while giving a speech. During cross-examination, the interlocutor
1125:
In doctrinal disputes, Inherency is only a nonissue when there is organizational consensus. Policy debate ensues, of the academic and nonacademic varieties, in re-evaluating or "rescuing" Inherency. For example, the Status Quo Inherency is used in academic debate to scope resolutions, affirmative
724:
Debaters sometimes use the "dropped egg" argument to refer to arguments dropped by the opposing team, stating that "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg. Once an egg is dropped, it cannot be fixed (or whole) again. Therefore, you should disregard their argument..." etc. This argument is optimal
525:
The ballot is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows the material with great depth and breadth. Those debaters in formal, organized debate, get speaker awards based on judges' opinions of the speakers' performances.
2036:
that is monolithic and is presented by the negative team, which incorporates some of the affirmative's plan either functionally or substantively. Most judges consider monolithic plans theoretically legitimate although it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are
1366:
refers to the individual responsible for determining the winner and loser of a policy debate round as well as assessing the relative merit of the speakers. Judges must resolve the complex issues presented in short time while, ideally, avoiding inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud
2084:
Although preparation time varies from tournament to tournament, in high school each team is generally given between 5 and 8 minutes of prep time depending on the state and tournament; in college, each team is generally given 10 minutes of prep time. At some collegiate tournaments, for example the
1215:
Within the topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state. If a plan were to have the U.S. send humanitarian aid to Sudan, then the policy group, the folks who are expected to
2708:
The reason why, for example, "Turn the Link" is preferred speech over saying "Link Turn" is the action in the argument prefaces the rationale, the middle argument to be argued or proven or presented, and moves the debate forward as a matter of understanding and separates whose argument is whose
808:
the plan happens. From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides. Fiat almost always does not have to be debated in policy debate but should be taught by
1132:
Argumentation Inherency, a stock issue, does not refer so much to plans and counterplans in policy debate or the resolution but to fairness in competitive debate. Affirmative Inherency does not have to explicitly overcome apathy or even be mentioned, because Argumentation Inherency endows the
2044:
An affirmative monolithic plan tends to foreclose negative counterplans. For example, on a military topic, it is highly unlikely that there can be a viable nonmilitary counterplan alone that would not include the military, which would already be advocated by the affirmative. A negative team
796:
Fiat is not taken for granted but is granted to end political discourse, palace intrigue, vote-getting in election politicking, identity politicking, and promote academic debate on policy matters while disregarding the exact partisan composition needed to implement a plan. For example, both
695:"Silence is compliance." (Sometimes, "Silence is consent" or "Silence is consensus".) Debaters tend to use this as a general rule while evaluating a debate round. If a team says nothing against an argument, then because 'silence is compliance', they must agree to whatever the argument was.
1211:
An interlocutor is, generically, to whom one speaks. In debate an interlocutor is one of the teams on the debate circuit, as well the judges and coaches. The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them.
720:
Some judges will not evaluate some arguments, even when they are dropped, such as arguments labeled "voting issues" but which are unsupported by warrants. For example, "the sky is blue, vote affirmative" is an argument that most judges would believe does not need to be answered.
1122:
negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a "Stocks Issues" judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss.
2088:
Some judges will allow the team taking preparation time to continue asking questions of their opponent. However, because most judges will not require the other team to answer, these questions are generally clarification oriented rather than combative, unlike those asked in
1089:: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government imposes unilateral tariffs and quotas to prevent international trade. This plan is inherent because it goes against current
2123:
Rebuttal speeches must address arguments made in the constructive speeches. They generally may not propose new arguments or recover arguments dropped in a team's previous speeches. Teams breaking from this precedent are often met by claims of abuse from opponents.
2085:
University of Texas at Dallas, alternate use time is used giving the debaters a total of 16 minutes and eliminating the mandatory cross examination periods. This time can be used as preparation time or to ask questions during the normal cross examination periods.
1030:
by arguing that nuclear war is an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in the future). Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project?
2477:
A common negative mistake is to grant a non-uniqueness argument to kick a link turned disadvantage. Since non-uniqueness arguments are critical components of link turns, a disadvantage with only non-unique and link turn responses is actually straight turned.
773:. Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from the debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted.
777:
part of their regular duties, the presumption of "perfect obedience for the plan's enactment". However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution.
2709:
rather than assuming the movement of the debate is a mutual drag of constructed arguments, which it is not. The manner of preferred speech avoids getting bogged down in relying too much on the flowsheet, even though saying "Link Turn" is more concise.
748:
for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action." Derived from the word
1815:(2AC) arguments if there is a more compelling reason to divide arguments on flows. Often the 2NC and 1NR will go for different "worlds" of arguments, enabling the 2NR to go for only 2NC or only 1NR arguments, if the opportunity presents itself.
2473:
For example: If the affirmative link turned the economy disadvantage above but also argued that economic collapse did not lead to war, the negative could "kick" the disadvantage by granting the impact take-out to eliminate the risk of a turn.
2340:
but a debate policy theory about the inherent harms in change, the harms in tinkering or focusing on minutiae or offering incrementalism in a plan. That is, the better understanding about Significance is significant, is better debate theory.
432:
Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond the
1803:
of the 2NC, they are given back to back without the interruption of an affirmative speech. This is purposely arranged in academic policy debate to give the Affirmative the benefit of having the first and last speech.
1126:
plans, and the types of evidence in a formal academic debate. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, as opposed to policy debate, there is no need to "rescue Inherency", because the status quo is not required for the debate.
400:
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".
812:
Note that these types of arguments about fiat, that incorrectly assumes fiat is a process argument, are rarely distinguishable from counter-resolutions and nontopicality and are therefore frowned upon by judges:
1401:: Latin for blank slate, these judges will view the debate round without any pre-conceived notions of what's important in debate, and will allow the debaters to provide interpretations on how to view the round.
1257:, which simply does the mandates of the Affirmative plan through the use of another agent. Sometimes, the Negative will even use another country. If the Affirmative plan were to send peacekeeping troops to
824:
because they require the supposition of a world where the plan is passed and implemented. This sort of argument is no different from straightforward Negative Solvency, the tactic that refutes the Aff plan
382:
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
941:
to the Significance stock issue. An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory.
2613:, which merely argues that the argument the other team has made is wrong. The turn can be used against practically any argument that includes a link and impact (or something equivalent), including
2519:
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.
2120:
In high school, rebuttals are usually five minutes long (with the exception of certain states and organizations that use four minute rebuttals). In college debate, they are generally six minutes.
820:
arguments attempt to show that the consequences of passing and enacting the affirmative plan would be in some way worse than the harms described by the affirmative. Such arguments are labelled
444:
Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making.
1099:: Although the present system is aware that the problem exists, the steps in place fail to solve the existing harms. An example of this would be a plan removing all American forces from
1604:, meaning "critique" or "criticism") is a form of argument in policy debate that challenges a certain mindset or assumption made by the opposing team, often from the perspective of
592:"A bill to establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and for other purposes."
397:, 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.
1807:
Almost universally, Negative teams will "split the block" by dividing the arguments between their speeches to avoid repeating themselves. Usually, the division will be based on
1515:
the disadvantage, arguing it is a moot issue, by saying that economic collapse will not occur in the status quo, so the prevention of a non-existent event carries no advantage.
692:
refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate.
2776:
835:
arguments (the affirmative is not within the resolution, therefore preventing the negative from running an argument they would have otherwise been able to run) and language
789:"Intrinsic means" – are the same means as the status quo without having to justify discovery or extraordinary support of those means. For example, if the plan's agency is
1103:
claiming that, although some troops are being removed from Afghanistan in the status quo, not all troops are being removed and the harms of military presence still exist.
2554:
2431:
2261:
2159:
1985:
1864:
1744:
1651:
1550:
1449:
1304:
1172:
980:
879:
636:
479:
323:
52:
1616:
in that it includes a link and an impact or implication. Unlike the disadvantage, however, it excludes uniqueness and includes an alternative or advocacy statement.
441:. On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect.
2093:. Many judges disapprove of using alternate use time for non-alternate use activities, for example asking questions of the other team or presenting more arguments.
2073:) is the amount of time given to each team to prepare for their speeches. Prep time may be taken at any time in any interval. Another form of prep time is known as
706:, the speaker is required to answer all arguments made so far by the negative team. This is because if the affirmative chooses to respond to the arguments in the
2470:
A disadvantage (or advantage) is said to be straight-turned when the responding team has answered an argument only with turns and with no defensive argument.
2883:
518:
In debate, judges consider or score the debate, and ultimately vote for the winner of the debate round on a ballot. The purpose of the ballot is what the
2981:
1129:
The classical form of Inherency belongs to the Negative as Status Quo Inherency, which succinctly states that "there is unknown danger in change".
267:
99:
71:
1608:. A kritik can either be deployed by the negative team to challenge the affirmative advocacy or by the affirmative team to counterpose the
1822:
by the 2NC, the cross-examination of the 2NC will generally not emphasize dropped arguments. Also, because the cross-examination provides
804:
In policy debate, fiating the plan is almost always granted without argument, to help debaters and judges evaluate the merits of a plan
1045:
are subject to impact turns on account of their Grounds missed opportunities, sometimes also their nebulous impacts; a critique of the
765:
team to proceed with proposing a plan. An example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of
78:
3155:
3128:
3101:
3074:
3012:
2803:
1391:: Will see whichever team has the most net beneficial policy option as the winner. It is often advised for the negative team to run a
1243:
1223:
2580:
2457:
2287:
2185:
2011:
1890:
1770:
1677:
1576:
1475:
1330:
1198:
1006:
905:
662:
505:
371:
349:
118:
2829:
1950:, is universally considered an off-case argument, because it deals directly with the plan text rather than the evidence behind it.
2941:
1258:
725:
for lay, or parent, judges who need a reference to real life to understand the sophisticated arguments in a policy debate round.
601:
This causes the Affirmative team to more than likely become untopical and have a plan nowhere remotely related to the intention.
434:
85:
3192:
1812:
1231:
840:
2558:
2435:
2265:
2163:
1989:
1868:
1748:
1655:
1554:
1453:
1308:
1227:
1176:
984:
883:
640:
598:
will be passed instead due to the fact that the mandate doesn't specify which Congress the Affirmative team is referring to.
483:
327:
155:
56:
2788:
Strait, L. P.; Wallace, B. (2008). "Academic debate as a decision-making game: Inculcating the virtue of practical wisdom".
594:
from the 117th Congress. However, if the date the round is taking place happens during the 118th Congress, Senate Bill 361,
67:
2914:
714:
and strength because the affirmative gets the last speech, leaving the negative with no way to refute any argument made.
702:
if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. Generally, in the
1792:
384:
2512:
2375:
2215:
1703:
1500:
934:
790:
762:
757:, it means that the crux of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment of a given
2508:
2487:
2352:
1937:
1922:
1699:
754:
707:
703:
379:
229:
171:
148:
2891:
260:
717:
Many debaters refer to dropped arguments as "conceded," "unanswered," or "unrefuted" or "stands in good stead".
2543:
2516:
2420:
2382:
2250:
2219:
2148:
1974:
1918:
1853:
1733:
1640:
1539:
1492:
1438:
1293:
1161:
1090:
969:
868:
625:
587:
refers to when the Affirmative team's plan text includes the wrong bill or a bill from a previous legislature.
468:
391:
312:
183:
1242:. For example, on a previous high school debate topic – the use of renewable energy – the plan could use the
711:
92:
2989:
2562:
2547:
2439:
2424:
2269:
2254:
2167:
2152:
1993:
1978:
1872:
1857:
1796:
1752:
1737:
1659:
1644:
1558:
1543:
1457:
1442:
1312:
1297:
1180:
1165:
988:
973:
887:
872:
644:
629:
487:
472:
426:
331:
316:
45:
2605:
that proves an argument the other side has made actually supports one's own side. This is as opposed to a
1829:
to the 1NR, some debaters will end the cross-examination early if they have no important questions to ask.
3187:
1235:
253:
243:
2389:
2320:
2312:
1070:
2857:
The Policy Debate Manual: A comprehensive introduction to the theory and practice of competitive debate
809:
coaches and understood by debaters for what they are doing in the activity of academic policy debate.
542:
are the first four speeches of a debate round. Constructive speeches are each followed by a 3-minute
2733:
2626:
2622:
2614:
2504:
2378:
2324:
1926:
1819:
1808:
1496:
1378:
1253:
to solve for the harms of the affirmative and the most common method of doing so is by the use of an
758:
438:
209:
188:
2110:
843:
is more costly to everyone's tax rate already and will never be able to thoroughly oust the mafia.
2045:
advocating a counterplan of diplomatic solvency only is not likely to capture military solvency.
1239:
2686:(we turn the same authority they cited, who said something else supporting our side exclusively)
1370:
There are five main types of judge's judgment philosophies, sometimes called judge paradigms:
2855:
2319:. As a stock issue has fallen out of favor with the debate community almost all debaters and
2114:
2090:
2078:
2049:
1800:
1254:
543:
1367:
impartiality. Each judge follows a paradigm, which they use to determine who wins the round.
1038:, that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons why nuclear war is bad.
552:
In general, constructive arguments are the only time that a team can make new arguments. The
3056:
2211:
1826:
3159:
3132:
3105:
3078:
3016:
2807:
1395:, as it gives the judge a better option than doing nothing instead of the affirmative case.
1612:
or the negative advocacy. The structure of the kritik is generally similar to that of the
1605:
1598:
1035:
770:
553:
549:
In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long; in college, they are 9 minutes.
224:
2766:, (ed. K. Broda-Bahm). New York: International Debate Education Association, pp. 241-264.
2668:(we turn their purpose, they will never reach their solvency, their plan is a nonstarter)
2348:
1936:
They are so named because they are not directly responsive to the arguments made by the
2956:
2764:
Perspectives in Controversy: Selected essays from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate
1046:
766:
17:
2632:
For example, if the Negative said "The plan increases poverty," the Affirmative could
3181:
2594:
2500:
2371:
2308:
2199:
2102:
2062:
2025:
1911:
1784:
1691:
1066:
926:
685:
535:
410:
363:
283:
134:
3038:
2918:
2496:
2367:
2304:
1930:
1613:
1382:
1062:
922:
214:
204:
1385:, and will usually vote negative if the affirmative has lost at least one of them.
1354:
by arguing that economic decline would actually decrease the desire to go to war.
797:
Affirmative and Negative teams can cite political double-whammies or backlash as
2532:
2409:
2385:
2239:
2137:
2033:
1963:
1947:
1842:
1722:
1629:
1528:
1427:
1392:
1282:
1250:
1150:
1100:
958:
857:
614:
457:
418:
301:
219:
34:
1050:
state does — such as safeguarding domestic tranquility — are good.
2393:
2328:
2316:
1609:
1262:
1074:
930:
2942:"How Durable Is It? A Contextualized Interpretation of Fiat in Policy Debate"
2692:(we turn their janga syllogism of linked, interdependent series of arguments)
2041:
contentions, they are considered one of the most potent negative strategies.
1219:
Many times, institutional groups are subdivided into more specific "agents".
2674:(we turn their plan's Typicality argument against their Solvency uniqueness)
832:
831:
arguments are arguments that relate to in-round issues. Examples include:
387:, which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful.
2749:
Lichtman, A.; Rohrer, D. (1975). "A general theory of the counterplan".
2602:
1943:
1914:
1238:. Sometimes, the policy groups get smaller in numbers and devolve into
556:
of the debate are reserved for refutations of arguments already made.
1216:
implement the plan, would be the United States federal government.
2222:
negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools.
745:
519:
2860:(2.1 ed.). Atlanta, GA: National Debate Project. p. 114
2779:
Debaters Research Guide, Wake Forest University Press; pp. A1–A7
1799:(1NR). Although the two speeches are divided by a three-minute
1350:
the economy to collapse, resulting in war the affirmative could
3013:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Two - The Stock Issues"
1818:
Because the 1NR has the ability to answer arguments which were
945:
strategy is useful in the early rounds of a debate tournament.
2526:
2403:
2233:
2131:
2038:
1957:
1836:
1716:
1623:
1522:
1421:
1276:
1144:
952:
851:
608:
451:
423:
295:
28:
1503:
would link turn this argument by arguing that the plan would
2777:
The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making.
780:
There are different theories regarding presumption of fiat:
2888:
Theory and Practice in Academic Debate: A Reference Guide
429:), they are a key component in many negative strategies.
937:
functions as a preventive measure or "sure deterrence".
769:
peacekeeping may help to render the United States more
2347:
To some debaters, Significance derives from the word "
590:
For example, a team may want to pass Senate Bill 361,
1709:
The Negative team speaks second and second to last.
3039:"An Understanding of the Different Types of Judges"
2077:. Alternate use time replaces preparation time and
1026:nuclear war, which is bad so the affirmative could
59:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1929:on a separate sheet of paper each and read before
2890:(3rd ed.). Augustana College. Archived from
2762:Korcok, M. M. (2002). "The decision-maker".
2751:Journal of the American Forensics Association
2640:by proving the plan didn't increase poverty.
2037:illegitimate. Because they moot much of the
261:
8:
3129:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter Two"
2511:as worded. To contest the topicality of the
1591:
3156:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter 11"
2804:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter 13"
2698:(we turn the equity part of their solvency)
2561:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
2438:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
2268:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
2166:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1992:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1871:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1751:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1658:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1557:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1456:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1311:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1179:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
987:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
886:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
738:
729:
643:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
486:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
330:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
3102:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter 7"
3075:"Introduction to Policy Debate, Chapter 1"
2917:. National forensic League. Archived from
2877:
2875:
2226:policy pursued by the federal government.
2113:, rebuttal speeches are not followed by a
268:
254:
130:
2854:Bellon, Joe; Williams, Abi Smith (2008).
2581:Learn how and when to remove this message
2458:Learn how and when to remove this message
2288:Learn how and when to remove this message
2186:Learn how and when to remove this message
2012:Learn how and when to remove this message
1891:Learn how and when to remove this message
1771:Learn how and when to remove this message
1678:Learn how and when to remove this message
1577:Learn how and when to remove this message
1476:Learn how and when to remove this message
1331:Learn how and when to remove this message
1199:Learn how and when to remove this message
1007:Learn how and when to remove this message
906:Learn how and when to remove this message
663:Learn how and when to remove this message
506:Learn how and when to remove this message
350:Learn how and when to remove this message
119:Learn how and when to remove this message
2374:, referring to the effectiveness of the
2311:which establishes the importance of the
1377:: Will ideally vote mainly based on the
1346:: If the negative argued the plan would
1080:There are four main types of inherency:
1022:: If the negative argued the plan would
929:which refer to problems inherent in the
3043:McKinney Boyd Speech and Debate Society
2949:National Journal of Speech & Debate
2725:
2109:are the last four speeches. Unlike the
196:
163:
140:
133:
2915:"Scrutinizing Traditional Conventions"
2666:Turn Topicality, not even resolutional
1069:that refers to a barrier that keeps a
2790:Contemporary Argumentation and Debate
2775:Strait, L. P.; Wallace, B. (2007).
2680:(we turn their significance argument)
2643:There are many, many types of turns:
2636:with "the plan decreases poverty" or
2503:which pertains to whether or not the
7:
2559:adding citations to reliable sources
2436:adding citations to reliable sources
2266:adding citations to reliable sources
2164:adding citations to reliable sources
1990:adding citations to reliable sources
1869:adding citations to reliable sources
1749:adding citations to reliable sources
1698:(NEG) is the team which negates the
1656:adding citations to reliable sources
1555:adding citations to reliable sources
1454:adding citations to reliable sources
1309:adding citations to reliable sources
1177:adding citations to reliable sources
985:adding citations to reliable sources
884:adding citations to reliable sources
641:adding citations to reliable sources
484:adding citations to reliable sources
328:adding citations to reliable sources
57:adding citations to reliable sources
2662:(we turn their uniqueness argument)
1222:The most common agents include the
698:An argument is normally considered
1249:Sometimes the Negative will use a
25:
372:University Interscholastic League
68:"Glossary of policy debate terms"
2672:Turn the Typicality, too generic
2531:
2408:
2238:
2136:
1962:
1841:
1721:
1628:
1527:
1426:
1281:
1269:is the opposing team's debater.
1149:
957:
856:
613:
563:" (1AC) is used to present the "
456:
435:United States federal government
300:
239:
238:
33:
2656:(we turn their impact argument)
1813:second affirmative constructive
1499:would destroy the economy, the
1265:(or any other country), do it.
1261:, then the Negative would have
1230:(usually through the use of an
841:Federal Bureau of Investigation
559:In current policy debate, the "
44:needs additional citations for
3063:. Retrieved December 31, 2005.
2740:. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
561:first affirmative constructive
156:Inter-collegiate policy debate
1:
2704:(we turn their Justification)
2650:(we turn their link argument)
596:"Pistol Brace Protection Act"
378:is the team that affirms the
370:in some circuits, namely the
2940:Kearney, Michael W. (2014).
2734:Debating Agent Specification
1793:second negative constructive
575:" is a point of contention.
571:" must be presented in the "
2618:
2327:which is preferable to the
1042:
836:
710:, it reaffirms affirmative
708:second affirmative rebuttal
573:first negative constructive
3209:
2488:Topicality (policy debate)
2485:
2030:plan inclusive counterplan
704:first affirmative rebuttal
149:Policy debate competitions
3055:Cheshire, David. (2001).
2732:Cheshire, David. (2003).
2351:", which appears in most
1811:, but sometimes based on
1073:from being solved in the
3057:How to Cut Prep Time Use
2955:(2): 3–5. Archived from
2882:Snowball, David (1994).
2684:Turn the authority cited
1091:World Trade Organization
1034:An impact turn requires
368:cross-examination debate
2830:"Coaching the Negative"
1797:first negative rebuttal
18:Offense (policy debate)
3193:Glossaries of politics
2702:Turn the Justification
1702:and contends with the
1592:
739:
730:
2753:; vol. 12, pp. 70–79.
2696:Turn the diseconomics
2678:Turn the Significance
2323:now believe that any
2111:constructive speeches
2053:B of the farm bill".
1925:. They are generally
1113:Existential inherency
1107:Attitudinal inherency
567:". Whether all new "
540:constructive speeches
2792:; vol. 29, pp. 1–36.
2555:improve this section
2432:improve this section
2262:improve this section
2214:statement which the
2160:improve this section
1986:improve this section
1865:improve this section
1745:improve this section
1652:improve this section
1551:improve this section
1450:improve this section
1305:improve this section
1244:Department of Energy
1173:improve this section
1087:Structural inherency
981:improve this section
880:improve this section
637:improve this section
583:In policy debate, a
480:improve this section
324:improve this section
53:improve this article
3162:on 24 December 2011
3108:on 17 November 2013
3081:on 17 November 2013
2810:on 13 February 2013
2660:Turn the Uniqueness
2625:to the affirmative
2392:or problems of the
1906:, sometimes called
1273:Internal Link turns
761:, thus allowing an
530:Constructive speech
3135:on 24 January 2012
3019:on 24 January 2012
2921:on 15 October 2011
2894:on 5 February 2013
2075:alternate-use time
1904:Off-case arguments
1833:Off-case arguments
1352:internal link turn
1240:Executive agencies
569:off-case arguments
554:last four speeches
2591:
2590:
2583:
2468:
2467:
2460:
2298:
2297:
2290:
2196:
2195:
2188:
2115:cross-examination
2107:rebuttal speeches
2091:cross-examination
2079:cross-examination
2050:agent counterplan
2022:
2021:
2014:
1917:presented by the
1908:On-Plan arguments
1901:
1900:
1893:
1801:cross-examination
1781:
1780:
1773:
1688:
1687:
1680:
1587:
1586:
1579:
1486:
1485:
1478:
1341:
1340:
1333:
1255:agent counterplan
1209:
1208:
1201:
1017:
1016:
1009:
916:
915:
908:
673:
672:
665:
544:cross-examination
516:
515:
508:
415:agent counterplan
405:Agent counterplan
360:
359:
352:
278:
277:
129:
128:
121:
103:
16:(Redirected from
3200:
3172:
3171:
3169:
3167:
3158:. Archived from
3151:
3145:
3144:
3142:
3140:
3131:. Archived from
3124:
3118:
3117:
3115:
3113:
3104:. Archived from
3097:
3091:
3090:
3088:
3086:
3077:. Archived from
3070:
3064:
3053:
3047:
3046:
3035:
3029:
3028:
3026:
3024:
3015:. Archived from
3008:
3002:
3001:
2999:
2997:
2988:. Archived from
2986:The Debate Bible
2977:
2971:
2970:
2968:
2967:
2961:
2946:
2937:
2931:
2930:
2928:
2926:
2910:
2904:
2903:
2901:
2899:
2879:
2870:
2869:
2867:
2865:
2851:
2845:
2844:
2842:
2840:
2834:
2826:
2820:
2819:
2817:
2815:
2806:. Archived from
2799:
2793:
2786:
2780:
2773:
2767:
2760:
2754:
2747:
2741:
2730:
2586:
2579:
2575:
2572:
2566:
2535:
2527:
2463:
2456:
2452:
2449:
2443:
2412:
2404:
2331:is significant.
2293:
2286:
2282:
2279:
2273:
2242:
2234:
2218:affirms and the
2216:affirmative team
2191:
2184:
2180:
2177:
2171:
2140:
2132:
2067:preparation time
2057:Preparation time
2017:
2010:
2006:
2003:
1997:
1966:
1958:
1896:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1876:
1845:
1837:
1827:preparation time
1776:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1756:
1725:
1717:
1704:Affirmative team
1683:
1676:
1672:
1669:
1663:
1632:
1624:
1595:
1582:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1562:
1531:
1523:
1481:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1461:
1430:
1422:
1379:affirmative case
1336:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1316:
1285:
1277:
1204:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1184:
1153:
1145:
1012:
1005:
1001:
998:
992:
961:
953:
911:
904:
900:
897:
891:
860:
852:
742:
733:
668:
661:
657:
654:
648:
617:
609:
511:
504:
500:
497:
491:
460:
452:
355:
348:
344:
341:
335:
304:
296:
270:
263:
256:
242:
241:
131:
124:
117:
113:
110:
104:
102:
61:
37:
29:
21:
3208:
3207:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3165:
3163:
3153:
3152:
3148:
3138:
3136:
3126:
3125:
3121:
3111:
3109:
3099:
3098:
3094:
3084:
3082:
3072:
3071:
3067:
3054:
3050:
3037:
3036:
3032:
3022:
3020:
3010:
3009:
3005:
2995:
2993:
2992:on 2 April 2012
2980:Bruschke, Jon.
2979:
2978:
2974:
2965:
2963:
2959:
2944:
2939:
2938:
2934:
2924:
2922:
2912:
2911:
2907:
2897:
2895:
2881:
2880:
2873:
2863:
2861:
2853:
2852:
2848:
2838:
2836:
2832:
2828:
2827:
2823:
2813:
2811:
2801:
2800:
2796:
2787:
2783:
2774:
2770:
2761:
2757:
2748:
2744:
2731:
2727:
2722:
2654:Turn the Impact
2611:nonjustfication
2587:
2576:
2570:
2567:
2552:
2536:
2525:
2490:
2484:
2464:
2453:
2447:
2444:
2429:
2413:
2402:
2388:in solving the
2361:
2294:
2283:
2277:
2274:
2259:
2243:
2232:
2192:
2181:
2175:
2172:
2157:
2141:
2130:
2099:
2097:Rebuttal speech
2059:
2018:
2007:
2001:
1998:
1983:
1967:
1956:
1954:Monolithic Plan
1897:
1886:
1880:
1877:
1862:
1846:
1835:
1777:
1766:
1760:
1757:
1742:
1726:
1715:
1684:
1673:
1667:
1664:
1649:
1633:
1622:
1606:critical theory
1583:
1572:
1566:
1563:
1548:
1532:
1521:
1482:
1471:
1465:
1462:
1447:
1431:
1420:
1360:
1337:
1326:
1320:
1317:
1302:
1286:
1275:
1232:Executive Order
1205:
1194:
1188:
1185:
1170:
1154:
1143:
1056:
1036:impact calculus
1013:
1002:
996:
993:
978:
962:
951:
912:
901:
895:
892:
877:
861:
850:
735:
682:
669:
658:
652:
649:
634:
618:
607:
581:
532:
512:
501:
495:
492:
477:
461:
450:
407:
385:burden of proof
374:of Texas), the
356:
345:
339:
336:
321:
305:
294:
274:
225:Impact calculus
125:
114:
108:
105:
62:
60:
50:
38:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3206:
3204:
3196:
3195:
3190:
3180:
3179:
3174:
3173:
3154:Prager, John.
3146:
3127:Prager, John.
3119:
3100:Prager, John.
3092:
3073:Prager, John.
3065:
3048:
3030:
3011:Prager, John.
3003:
2972:
2932:
2913:Glass, David.
2905:
2871:
2846:
2821:
2802:Prager, John.
2794:
2781:
2768:
2755:
2742:
2724:
2723:
2721:
2718:
2706:
2705:
2699:
2693:
2690:Turn the chain
2687:
2681:
2675:
2669:
2663:
2657:
2651:
2589:
2588:
2539:
2537:
2530:
2524:
2521:
2486:Main article:
2483:
2480:
2466:
2465:
2416:
2414:
2407:
2401:
2400:Straight turns
2398:
2360:
2357:
2296:
2295:
2246:
2244:
2237:
2231:
2228:
2194:
2193:
2144:
2142:
2135:
2129:
2126:
2098:
2095:
2058:
2055:
2020:
2019:
1970:
1968:
1961:
1955:
1952:
1931:case arguments
1899:
1898:
1849:
1847:
1840:
1834:
1831:
1795:(2NC) and the
1791:refers to the
1789:negative block
1779:
1778:
1729:
1727:
1720:
1714:
1713:Negative block
1711:
1686:
1685:
1636:
1634:
1627:
1621:
1618:
1585:
1584:
1535:
1533:
1526:
1520:
1517:
1484:
1483:
1434:
1432:
1425:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1408:
1402:
1396:
1386:
1359:
1356:
1339:
1338:
1289:
1287:
1280:
1274:
1271:
1207:
1206:
1157:
1155:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1110:
1104:
1094:
1055:
1052:
1015:
1014:
965:
963:
956:
950:
947:
914:
913:
864:
862:
855:
849:
846:
845:
844:
826:
767:United Nations
734:
727:
681:
678:
671:
670:
621:
619:
612:
606:
603:
580:
577:
531:
528:
514:
513:
464:
462:
455:
449:
446:
406:
403:
358:
357:
308:
306:
299:
293:
290:
276:
275:
273:
272:
265:
258:
250:
247:
246:
235:
234:
233:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
199:
198:
197:Argument types
194:
193:
192:
191:
186:
180:
179:
174:
166:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
152:
151:
143:
142:
138:
137:
127:
126:
41:
39:
32:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3205:
3194:
3191:
3189:
3188:Policy debate
3186:
3185:
3183:
3161:
3157:
3150:
3147:
3134:
3130:
3123:
3120:
3107:
3103:
3096:
3093:
3080:
3076:
3069:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3052:
3049:
3044:
3040:
3034:
3031:
3018:
3014:
3007:
3004:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2976:
2973:
2962:on 2016-03-25
2958:
2954:
2950:
2943:
2936:
2933:
2920:
2916:
2909:
2906:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2878:
2876:
2872:
2859:
2858:
2850:
2847:
2831:
2825:
2822:
2809:
2805:
2798:
2795:
2791:
2785:
2782:
2778:
2772:
2769:
2765:
2759:
2756:
2752:
2746:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2729:
2726:
2719:
2717:
2715:
2710:
2703:
2700:
2697:
2694:
2691:
2688:
2685:
2682:
2679:
2676:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2664:
2661:
2658:
2655:
2652:
2649:
2648:Turn the Link
2646:
2645:
2644:
2641:
2639:
2635:
2630:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2615:disadvantages
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2595:policy debate
2585:
2582:
2574:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2550:
2549:
2545:
2540:This section
2538:
2534:
2529:
2528:
2522:
2520:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2501:policy debate
2498:
2494:
2489:
2481:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2462:
2459:
2451:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2427:
2426:
2422:
2417:This section
2415:
2411:
2406:
2405:
2399:
2397:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2380:
2377:
2373:
2372:policy debate
2369:
2365:
2358:
2356:
2354:
2350:
2349:substantially
2345:
2341:
2338:
2332:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2309:policy debate
2306:
2302:
2292:
2289:
2281:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2257:
2256:
2252:
2247:This section
2245:
2241:
2236:
2235:
2229:
2227:
2223:
2221:
2220:negative team
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2200:policy debate
2190:
2187:
2179:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2145:This section
2143:
2139:
2134:
2133:
2127:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2103:policy debate
2096:
2094:
2092:
2086:
2082:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2063:policy debate
2056:
2054:
2051:
2046:
2042:
2040:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2026:policy debate
2016:
2013:
2005:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1981:
1980:
1976:
1971:This section
1969:
1965:
1960:
1959:
1953:
1951:
1949:
1946:, although a
1945:
1941:
1939:
1934:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1913:
1912:policy debate
1909:
1905:
1895:
1892:
1884:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1860:
1859:
1855:
1850:This section
1848:
1844:
1839:
1838:
1832:
1830:
1828:
1825:
1821:
1816:
1814:
1810:
1805:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:policy debate
1775:
1772:
1764:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1730:This section
1728:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1712:
1710:
1707:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:policy debate
1682:
1679:
1671:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1637:This section
1635:
1631:
1626:
1625:
1619:
1617:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1594:
1581:
1578:
1570:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1541:
1536:This section
1534:
1530:
1525:
1524:
1518:
1516:
1514:
1508:
1507:the economy.
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1480:
1477:
1469:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1435:This section
1433:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1417:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1357:
1355:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1335:
1332:
1324:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1290:This section
1288:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1224:Supreme Court
1220:
1217:
1213:
1203:
1200:
1192:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1158:This section
1156:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1097:Gap inherency
1095:
1092:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:policy debate
1064:
1060:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1011:
1008:
1000:
990:
986:
982:
976:
975:
971:
966:This section
964:
960:
955:
954:
948:
946:
942:
938:
936:
932:
928:
927:policy debate
924:
920:
910:
907:
899:
889:
885:
881:
875:
874:
870:
865:This section
863:
859:
854:
853:
847:
842:
838:
834:
833:nontopicality
830:
827:
823:
819:
816:
815:
814:
810:
807:
802:
800:
799:disadvantages
794:
792:
787:
784:
781:
778:
774:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
747:
743:
741:
732:
728:
726:
722:
718:
715:
713:
709:
705:
701:
696:
693:
691:
687:
686:policy debate
679:
677:
667:
664:
656:
646:
642:
638:
632:
631:
627:
622:This section
620:
616:
611:
610:
604:
602:
599:
597:
593:
588:
586:
585:critical flaw
579:Critical Flaw
578:
576:
574:
570:
566:
562:
557:
555:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
536:policy debate
529:
527:
523:
521:
510:
507:
499:
489:
485:
481:
475:
474:
470:
465:This section
463:
459:
454:
453:
447:
445:
442:
440:
436:
430:
428:
425:
420:
416:
412:
411:policy debate
404:
402:
398:
396:
394:
388:
386:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:(also called
365:
364:policy debate
354:
351:
343:
333:
329:
325:
319:
318:
314:
309:This section
307:
303:
298:
297:
291:
289:
287:
285:
284:policy debate
271:
266:
264:
259:
257:
252:
251:
249:
248:
245:
244:Policy debate
237:
236:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
195:
190:
187:
185:
182:
181:
178:
175:
173:
170:
169:
168:
167:
162:
157:
154:
153:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
139:
136:
135:Policy debate
132:
123:
120:
112:
101:
98:
94:
91:
87:
84:
80:
77:
73:
70: –
69:
65:
64:Find sources:
58:
54:
48:
47:
42:This article
40:
36:
31:
30:
27:
19:
3164:. Retrieved
3160:the original
3149:
3137:. Retrieved
3133:the original
3122:
3110:. Retrieved
3106:the original
3095:
3083:. Retrieved
3079:the original
3068:
3060:
3051:
3042:
3033:
3021:. Retrieved
3017:the original
3006:
2994:. Retrieved
2990:the original
2985:
2975:
2964:. Retrieved
2957:the original
2952:
2948:
2935:
2923:. Retrieved
2919:the original
2908:
2896:. Retrieved
2892:the original
2887:
2862:. Retrieved
2856:
2849:
2837:. Retrieved
2824:
2812:. Retrieved
2808:the original
2797:
2789:
2784:
2771:
2763:
2758:
2750:
2745:
2737:
2728:
2713:
2711:
2707:
2701:
2695:
2689:
2683:
2677:
2671:
2665:
2659:
2653:
2647:
2642:
2637:
2633:
2631:
2610:
2606:
2598:
2592:
2577:
2571:October 2020
2568:
2553:Please help
2541:
2507:affirms the
2492:
2491:
2476:
2472:
2469:
2454:
2448:October 2020
2445:
2430:Please help
2418:
2363:
2362:
2346:
2342:
2336:
2333:
2301:Significance
2300:
2299:
2284:
2278:October 2020
2275:
2260:Please help
2248:
2230:Significance
2224:
2207:
2203:
2197:
2182:
2176:October 2020
2173:
2158:Please help
2146:
2122:
2119:
2106:
2100:
2087:
2083:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2060:
2047:
2043:
2029:
2023:
2008:
2002:October 2020
1999:
1984:Please help
1972:
1942:
1935:
1907:
1903:
1902:
1887:
1881:October 2020
1878:
1863:Please help
1851:
1823:
1817:
1806:
1788:
1782:
1767:
1761:October 2020
1758:
1743:Please help
1731:
1708:
1695:
1689:
1674:
1668:October 2020
1665:
1650:Please help
1638:
1614:disadvantage
1601:
1590:
1588:
1573:
1567:October 2020
1564:
1549:Please help
1537:
1512:
1509:
1504:
1488:
1487:
1472:
1466:October 2020
1463:
1448:Please help
1436:
1410:
1404:
1398:
1388:
1383:stock issues
1375:Stock Issues
1374:
1369:
1363:
1361:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1327:
1321:October 2020
1318:
1303:Please help
1291:
1267:
1248:
1221:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1195:
1189:October 2020
1186:
1171:Please help
1159:
1141:Interlocutor
1135:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1112:
1106:
1096:
1086:
1079:
1058:
1057:
1041:Very often,
1040:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1003:
997:October 2020
994:
979:Please help
967:
949:Impact turns
943:
939:
918:
917:
902:
896:October 2020
893:
878:Please help
866:
828:
821:
817:
811:
805:
803:
798:
795:
788:
785:
782:
779:
775:
771:multilateral
750:
737:
736:
723:
719:
716:
699:
697:
694:
689:
683:
674:
659:
653:October 2020
650:
635:Please help
623:
605:Double turns
600:
595:
591:
589:
584:
582:
572:
568:
564:
560:
558:
551:
548:
539:
533:
524:
517:
502:
496:October 2020
493:
478:Please help
466:
443:
431:
414:
408:
399:
392:
389:
375:
367:
361:
346:
340:October 2020
337:
322:Please help
310:
282:glossary of
281:
279:
215:Disadvantage
205:Stock issues
176:
141:Organization
115:
109:October 2020
106:
96:
89:
82:
75:
63:
51:Please help
46:verification
43:
26:
2925:20 February
2898:20 February
2714:pocket turn
2513:affirmative
2497:stock issue
2386:counterplan
2376:affirmative
2368:stock issue
2353:resolutions
2305:stock issue
2034:counterplan
1948:stock issue
1501:affirmative
1495:argued the
1399:Tabula Rasa
1393:Counterplan
1389:Policymaker
1251:counterplan
1101:Afghanistan
1063:stock issue
1028:impact turn
935:affirmative
923:stock issue
763:affirmative
448:Ballot Vote
419:counterplan
376:Affirmative
292:Affirmative
220:Counterplan
3182:Categories
2966:2017-10-24
2864:1 February
2720:References
2623:advantages
2509:resolution
2493:Topicality
2482:Topicality
2394:status quo
2329:status quo
2317:status quo
2204:resolution
2128:Resolution
1944:Topicality
1700:resolution
1610:status quo
1597:(from the
1418:Link turns
1411:Lay Judges
1263:Bangladesh
1075:status quo
931:status quo
755:resolution
380:resolution
280:This is a
230:Topicality
79:newspapers
2542:does not
2419:does not
2249:does not
2212:normative
2147:does not
2071:prep time
1973:does not
1915:arguments
1852:does not
1732:does not
1639:does not
1538:does not
1491:: If the
1437:does not
1292:does not
1228:President
1160:does not
1059:Inherency
1054:Inherency
968:does not
867:does not
825:Solvency.
822:post-fiat
818:Post-fiat
806:as though
624:does not
467:does not
439:plan text
437:in their
311:does not
172:Structure
3112:12 March
3085:12 March
3023:17 April
2996:17 April
2982:"DISADS"
2839:12 March
2814:12 March
2603:argument
2517:negative
2383:negative
2364:Solvency
2359:Solvency
2117:period.
1919:negative
1824:de facto
1696:Negative
1620:Negative
1493:negative
1405:Theorist
1236:Congress
829:Pre-fiat
546:period.
393:Negative
184:Evidence
177:Glossary
3166:7 April
3139:7 April
3061:Rostrum
2835:. NAUDL
2738:Rostrum
2638:takeout
2621:, and
2619:kritiks
2607:takeout
2563:removed
2548:sources
2440:removed
2425:sources
2381:or the
2315:in the
2270:removed
2255:sources
2168:removed
2153:sources
1994:removed
1979:sources
1921:in the
1873:removed
1858:sources
1820:dropped
1753:removed
1738:sources
1706:(AFF).
1660:removed
1645:sources
1559:removed
1544:sources
1489:Example
1458:removed
1443:sources
1344:Example
1313:removed
1298:sources
1234:), and
1181:removed
1166:sources
1043:kritiks
1020:Example
989:removed
974:sources
888:removed
873:sources
837:kritiks
753:in the
700:dropped
645:removed
630:sources
488:removed
473:sources
427:offense
332:removed
317:sources
93:scholar
2884:"Fiat"
2601:is an
2515:, the
2321:judges
2105:, the
1927:flowed
1787:, the
1694:, the
1602:Kritik
1599:German
1593:kritik
1519:Kritik
1226:, the
921:are a
791:C.I.A.
751:should
712:ground
164:Format
95:
88:
81:
74:
66:
2960:(PDF)
2945:(PDF)
2833:(PDF)
2495:is a
2390:harms
2366:is a
2313:harms
2303:is a
2210:is a
2208:topic
2202:, a
2032:is a
1809:flows
1364:judge
1358:Judge
1348:cause
1259:Congo
1093:laws.
1061:is a
1047:state
1024:cause
919:Harms
848:Harms
746:Latin
520:judge
417:is a
413:, an
286:terms
100:JSTOR
86:books
3168:2012
3141:2012
3114:2013
3087:2013
3025:2012
2998:2012
2927:2013
2900:2013
2866:2020
2841:2013
2816:2013
2634:turn
2627:case
2599:turn
2597:, a
2546:any
2544:cite
2523:Turn
2505:plan
2423:any
2421:cite
2379:plan
2337:plus
2325:plan
2253:any
2251:cite
2151:any
2149:cite
2028:, a
1977:any
1975:cite
1910:are
1856:any
1854:cite
1736:any
1734:cite
1643:any
1641:cite
1542:any
1540:cite
1513:kick
1505:help
1497:plan
1441:any
1439:cite
1296:any
1294:cite
1164:any
1162:cite
1071:harm
972:any
970:cite
871:any
869:cite
759:plan
740:Fiat
731:Fiat
690:drop
688:, a
680:Drop
628:any
626:cite
565:plan
471:any
469:cite
395:side
390:The
315:any
313:cite
210:Case
189:Flow
72:news
2609:or
2593:In
2557:by
2499:in
2434:by
2370:in
2307:in
2264:by
2206:or
2198:In
2162:by
2101:In
2061:In
2048:An
2039:1AC
2024:In
1988:by
1938:1AC
1923:1NC
1867:by
1783:In
1747:by
1690:In
1654:by
1553:by
1452:by
1381:'s
1307:by
1175:by
1065:in
983:by
925:in
882:by
684:In
639:by
534:In
482:by
424:1AC
409:In
362:In
326:by
55:by
3184::
3059:.
3041:.
2984:.
2951:.
2947:.
2886:.
2874:^
2736:.
2712:A
2629:.
2617:,
2065:,
1940:.
1933:.
1589:A
1362:A
1246:.
1077:.
538:,
288:.
3170:.
3143:.
3116:.
3089:.
3045:.
3027:.
3000:.
2969:.
2953:2
2929:.
2902:.
2868:.
2843:.
2818:.
2584:)
2578:(
2573:)
2569:(
2565:.
2551:.
2461:)
2455:(
2450:)
2446:(
2442:.
2428:.
2291:)
2285:(
2280:)
2276:(
2272:.
2258:.
2189:)
2183:(
2178:)
2174:(
2170:.
2156:.
2069:(
2015:)
2009:(
2004:)
2000:(
1996:.
1982:.
1894:)
1888:(
1883:)
1879:(
1875:.
1861:.
1774:)
1768:(
1763:)
1759:(
1755:.
1741:.
1681:)
1675:(
1670:)
1666:(
1662:.
1648:.
1580:)
1574:(
1569:)
1565:(
1561:.
1547:.
1479:)
1473:(
1468:)
1464:(
1460:.
1446:.
1334:)
1328:(
1323:)
1319:(
1315:.
1301:.
1202:)
1196:(
1191:)
1187:(
1183:.
1169:.
1010:)
1004:(
999:)
995:(
991:.
977:.
909:)
903:(
898:)
894:(
890:.
876:.
744:(
666:)
660:(
655:)
651:(
647:.
633:.
509:)
503:(
498:)
494:(
490:.
476:.
353:)
347:(
342:)
338:(
334:.
320:.
269:e
262:t
255:v
122:)
116:(
111:)
107:(
97:·
90:·
83:·
76:·
49:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
