Policy debate - Knowledge (XXG)

1165:

high school level. However, the method accepted by most national organizations such as the National Forensic League, Tournament of Champions, National Catholic Forensic League, Cross-Examination Debate Association, and National Debate Tournament, use values ranging from 1 to 30. In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where a perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance. Most tournaments accept half-point gradations, for example 28.5s, or even by tenths. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses, yet often correlate with a team's win/loss rate. In other words, the judge usually awards the winning team cumulatively higher speaker points than the losing team. If the judge does not, the decision is considered a "low-point win". Low-point wins simply mean that the team with better argumentation did not speak as well as their competitors, which is rare, because judges will vote for teams that speak better overall and award higher speaker points to teams who deliver a better debate. The difference can be stated as so, "the low-point winning team are better debaters, and the high-point losing team provided a better debate round".

922:: The negative can present a counter solution to the affirmative case's problem which does not have to affirm the resolution (The negative does not have to be topical in making a counterplan). This is generally accompanied by on-case arguments that the affirmative's plan does not solve, as well as disadvantages that link to the affirmative case but not the counterplan. Counterplans narrow down the on-case arguments to: advantages the counterplan can not borrow, the inherency, and the solvency. Upon the negative running a counterplan, most debates boil down to the solvency of the affirmative case, and the disadvantages. Counterplans must be competitive with the plan. That means that the counterplan must either be mutually exclusive with the affirmative (for example, one cannot both increase oil production (a hypothetical plan) and decrease oil production (a hypothetical counterplan) or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan (the negative must win that the inclusion of the plan would cause some form of harm that the counterplan alone would avoid). If a counterplan is dropped after the affirmative perms as advocacy, the affirmative gets to keep all of the additional solvency. 910:: The Negative will attempt to argue that the Affirmative team does not fall under the rubric of the resolution and should be rejected immediately regardless of the merits or advantages of the plan. This is a type of "meta-debate" argument, as both sides then spend time defining various words or phrases in the resolution, laying down standards for why their definition(s) or interpretation(s) is superior. Most yearly topics have at least one or two commonly run Affirmative cases that are only arguably topical, so Topicality is often justified as a check or deterrent on and against such plans, which usually have quite strategic components. If run correctly, they are the strongest arguments against case only in unique circumstances. When topicality is run when the aff is clearly topical, which is common, it is usually used as a time waster for the aff. 1365:, which requires formal qualification in the form of two or more bids to the tournament. Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent. Debater partnerships with 2 bids are guaranteed a spot at the TOC, whereas debater teams with 1 bid (At-large teams) may be admitted if they consistently advance far in the elimination rounds or come close to winning a bid several other times. 497:

because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut (or refute) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

916:: The negative can claim that there are disadvantages, or adverse effects of the plan, which outweigh any advantages claimed. In order to outweigh any positive effects of the affirmative case, impacts must be arguably "larger" than those of the opposing team. The negative must say what is good now, and how the affirmative's plan causes the impact of their disadvantage. A disadvantage is composed of a uniqueness (a description of the status quo in terms of the impacts of their disadvantage), a link (how the affirmative's plan activates the impact), and an impact (the adverse effect). 739:(Inherency). They must persuade that their plan is an example of the resolution (Topicality, Typicality), and they must prove that the plan is a good idea (Solvency). The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo (Harms). Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo (commonly referred to as the squo), the negative team always has presumption for winning the round. The negative is automatically the winner unless the affirmative can prove they are better than the status quo. 594:, for a total of eight speeches each debate round. Each speaker was cross-examined by their opponent for a period following his or her constructive speech. Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped. Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards. 730:

unfair and therefore warrant a loss or other intervention by the judge. They are also brought up to change how an argument is weighted by the judge to either assist themselves or detract from the opponents. Theory debates in-round are not rare, but whole rounds are almost never about theory itself. Theory is argued as part of the decision of the round with the hope of advancing debate the activity and the principles of rhetoric, argumentation, policymaking, and so on that the debaters are engaged in the substantive matter of the topic.

618:

understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. In contrast, rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences.

84: 928:: The negative can claim that the affirmative is guilty of a certain mindset or assumption that should be grounds for rejection or a different mutually exclusive alternative to the Affirmative's plan. Kritiks are sometimes a reason to reject the entire affirmative advocacy without evaluating its policy; other times, kritiks can be evaluated within the same strictures as the affirmative case as to who is hypocritical or irrelevant or prejudiced, etc. Examples of some areas of literature for kritiks include 1386:

is organized by a five-member board, including Executive Grant Zhang, President Kelly Mu, Assistant Jared Shirts, Outreach Ambassador Ann Schulte, and Coach Joseph Smith. The RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills.

492:. 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 we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a 652:, case, etc.). There are multiple methods of flowing, but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech. The first constructive speech is flowed from the top of the sheet down in the first column, and the next constructive speech is flowed in the right column next to the first one. Each speech is flowed in separate columns, alternating Affirmative and Negative. Rebuttals are flowed the same. 430: 544:'s debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in the mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854. Many debating societies that were founded at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century are still active today, though they have generally shifted their focus to intercollegiate competitive debate. In addition to Wake Forest, the debate society at 1038:(because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been replaced by digital storage). Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the argument or evidence summary, the evidence that supports the argument, and the citation. The argument part, sometimes called the 1677: 1288: 1083: 968: 806: 669: 146: 1173:

and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges. The number of speaker awards given out varies based on the number of debaters competing at any given tournament. For instance, a small local tournament might only award trophies or plaques to the top three debaters, whereas a widely attended "national circuit" tournament might give out awards to the top ten or fifteen speakers.

1060:. It is generally accepted whichever team is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced. 43: 1483:(ADA) all host national tournaments. The NDT committee issues a ranking report of the top 16 teams in the country ("first round bids") for automatic advancement to the NDT in early February. The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February. 248: 1385:

The Rural Debate Initiative ("RuDI") expands access to debate to secondary school students residing in rural America. RuDI partners with top college programs to provide weekly coaching sessions, internal debate tournaments and summer debate camps to rural students in a virtual format at no cost. RuDI

1172:

At a majority of tournaments, debaters also receive "speaker awards", which are awarded to the debaters who received the greatest number of speaker points. Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair

1143:

A judge is an individual responsible for deciding the winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers. Judges merit a good debate round and, ideally, avoid inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality, however, total impartiality is impossible

613:

Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In more progressive and larger tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained

1540:

At the high-school level, "topic papers" are also prepared but the voting procedure is different. Those papers are then presented to a topic selection committee which rewords each topic and eventually narrows down the number of topics to five topics. Then the five resolutions are put to a two-tiered

1068:

nationals, and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for the purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their

1063:

After a round, judges sometimes "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably

1046:

contains all relevant reference citation 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 spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's

1536:

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. Each school then gets one vote on the topic. The single topic area voted on then has a number of proposed topic wordings, one is chosen, and it is

1528:

negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. Most resolutions from the 1920s to 2005 have begun "Resolved: that The United States federal government should" although some variations from that template have been used both before the NDT-CEDA merger and with the 2006–2007 college

1185:

Not every judge fits perfectly into one paradigm or another. A judge may say that they are "tabula rasa" or tab for short, or willing to listen to anything, but draw the line at arguments they consider to be offensive (such as arguments in favor of racism). Or, a judge might be a "policymaker", but

1181:

Most debate judges (who were usually debaters in high school and/or college) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Depending on what mindset, or paradigm, the judge uses, the debate can be drastically different. Because there is no one view of debate agreed

948:

philology about the ambiguity of the language used (diction) and were championed by debaters Shane Stafford and Bill Shanahan. A kritik is built with a link (how the affirmative activates the impacts), an impact (the impact of a kritik is slightly different to regular impacts. They are more similar

866:

Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages, which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that the affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages

729:

There are many accepted standards in policy debate, and there are several dominant speech argument styles. Sometimes debaters will debate about how policy debate should work. Those arguments are known as "theory" arguments, and they are most often brought up when one team believes the other team is

1266:

The judge gives the closure of the round. Judges who know stasis theory do not overexplain what it is and tend to be pedagogical, coaching debaters after the round to help improve debaters' appreciation of debate and oratory, by speaking on arguments and argumentation, strategy and tactics, rather

1164:

The judge is charged not only with selecting a winner, but also must allot points to each debater. "Speaker points" are numeric merit scores that the judge awards the debaters on their speaking skills. Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at the

1055:

Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech. If cards are not shared before the speech, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine evidence even while a speech is still going

952:

Theory: Sometimes the subject matter of the affirmative's case will create uneven Grounds at the beginning. In these cases, the negative can object to the procedure or content of the affirmative case. These objections are part of a Grounds theory debate in that they try to delineate what has been

496:

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 round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech,

1168:

In some smaller jurisdictions, the judge ranks the speakers 1‑4 instead of awarding them speaker points. Either speaker-point calculation may be used to break ties among teams with like records. Some areas also use speaker rankings in addition to speaker points in order to differentiate between

1151:

or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important part of the activity of a debate club. Debaters in these circuits should be able to adapt their presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, as well as maintaining high standards of debate for judges who have

1376:

give students in urban school districts an opportunity to participate in policy debate. There are currently urban debate leagues in 24 of the largest cities in the United States. In total, more than 500 high schools participate in the league and more than 40,000 students have competed in urban

738:

When the Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate (Justification) a significant change (Significance or Impact) to the status quo and that their plan should be adopted and hence, by default, the resolution that in general will allow for such a plan

1051:

is a fragment 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

617:

Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be

1200:, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. These judges are more likely to dislike newer arguments such as critics and some theoretical points. 1206:

At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of

757:. The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost (Significance). They are generally known as follows: 1497:

While once attended by only highly competitive policy debaters, many high school students now attend debate institutes, which are typically held at colleges in the summer. Most institutes range from about two to seven weeks, with four weeks being the most common.

1069:

own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner, and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published later.

949:

to harms and the impacts are saying that the affirmative team prolongs these harms), and the alternative (a way to fix the impacts, often in a very extreme manner. An example would be destroying the entire American government to fix institutionalized racism).

1228:

Views debate as a game. Judges who use this paradigm tend to be concerned with whether or not each team has a fair chance at winning the debate. They usually view the debate flow as a game board, and look at arguments according to an offense/defense

1056:

on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in

1541:

voting system. State forensic associations, the National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League all vote on the five topics, narrowing it down to two. Then the two topics are again put to a vote, and one topic is selected.

895:. The acceptance of all-inclusive negation, as opposed piecemeal, allows Negative teams to run full argumentation outlines such as topical counterplans with better Solvency that affirms the resolution but still negates the Affirmative's plan. 2433: 1356:

A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' The championship of the national circuit is usually considered to be the

552:'s Fulton Debating Society, which was founded in 1868, continues to organize an annual "Fulton Prize Debate" between teams of its own students after the intercollegiate debate season has ended. Other universities continue similar traditions. 1645:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its security cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in one or more of the following areas: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity.

1221:

for "blank slate", the judge attempts to come into the round with no predispositions. These judges typically expect debaters to "debate it out", which includes telling the judge what paradigm they should view the round

1654:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase fiscal redistribution in the United States by adopting a federal jobs guarantee, expanding Social Security, and/or providing a basic income.

1152:

themselves been debaters. A common saying is that debate is a game of judges/judge adaptation. This use of lay judges significantly alters delivery and argumentation, as the rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory

1235:

This type of judge is concerned with good presentation and persuasion skills. They tend to vote for teams that are more articulate, and present arguments in the most appealing way. These judges usually disapprove of

770:

of the status quo: Is the plan an Intrinsic change? Also, is the plan necessary? What is the Status Quo? Is the affirmative's plan happening already, and if not, why? Inherency promotes strength of originality in

1501:

Many institutes divide students into work groups, or "labs", based on skill level and experience. Many even offer specialized "advanced" or "scholars" workshops, to which acceptance is highly limited.

1549:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.

1411:(now known as the National Speech & Debate Association). For the highest level of competition, the Tournament of Champions is generally considered to be the more prestigious title to hold. 1353:

Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Thousands of tournaments are held each year at high schools and certain colleges throughout the US.

1436: 517: 1629:

Resolved: The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.

1663:

Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly strengthen its protection of domestic intellectual property rights in copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks.

477:

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

590:

By the mid-1970s, regular rules for lengths of speeches developed. Each side (Affirmative and Negative) was afforded two opening "constructive" speeches, and two closing

1047:

qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. Qualifications are only included in trying to increase the weight of your cards against your opponents'. The

1605:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of primary and/or secondary education in the United States.

1242:

In order for the affirmative to win, they convince the judge to support the resolution. Conversely, the negative must convince the judge to negate the resolution.

1621:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

1399:

There is some dispute over what constitutes the "national championship" in the United States per se, but two tournaments generally compete for the title: The

1426: 505: 1597:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China.

540:

Academic debate had its origins in intra-collegiate debating societies, in which students would engage in invitational debates against their classmates.

1267:

than speaking on their personal judgment and analysis or judge's paradigm. But these judges do judge and are not paradigm-based in their ballot voting.

583:

in the late 1890s. Southwestern claims that the first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College (which eventually became

781:

What is the problem in the status quo to justify adopting the plan? Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference?

1581:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.

457: 1565:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

1557:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Mesosphere.

1052:

unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the citation and the body.

501: 2426:

Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "Post-Modern Critiques as Stratagems in the Policy Debate Discourse." National Forensic League. 2005

2350: 1156:

are frequently new to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters.

655:

Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary.

1476: 525: 105: 1613:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.

1573:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

1504:

These camps often set the tone for the upcoming season and produce much of the evidence used by debaters at the beginning of the year.

2427: 764:

Does the plan acknowledge a problem, a want, a need, of some policy interest implied or alluded to or of interest from the resolution?

2073: 1637:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.

2404: 2373: 2319: 1724: 1419: 1335: 1182:

upon by everyone, many debaters question a judge about their paradigm and/or their feelings on specific arguments before the round.

1130: 1065: 1015: 853: 716: 308: 290: 229: 127: 70: 555:

Intercollegiate debates have been held since at least as early as the 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from

1400: 1358: 792:

Will the plan solve any problems in the status quo? How much of an impact (positive effect, or Significance) will the plan have?

2092: 1942: 366: 2422: 1947: 1702: 1698: 1313: 1309: 1108: 1104: 993: 989: 831: 827: 694: 690: 520:, as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of 345: 272: 167: 163: 56: 2421:

Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "The Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting." National Forensic League. 22 June 2006

210: 2452: 903:

After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include:

529: 182: 2190: 263: 1530: 1521: 1480: 888: 636:, to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, a debater's flow is divided into separate 572: 1687: 1298: 1093: 978: 816: 753:

One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the

679: 189: 98: 92: 2523: 1952: 1914: 1900: 1886: 1872: 1844: 1816: 1788: 1738: 1472: 1460: 1277: 907: 892: 649: 521: 419: 361: 338: 1706: 1691: 1317: 1302: 1112: 1097: 1042:, is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The 997: 982: 835: 820: 698: 683: 156: 2033: 450: 109: 2226: 1525: 1408: 1029: 884: 584: 509: 373: 196: 1999: 1962: 614:

speech. Speed reading or spreading is normal at the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments.

545: 2587: 1404: 1362: 556: 541: 443: 433: 178: 1144:

which has led to judges adopting a paradigm. Judges are sometimes coaches who help debate teams improve.

777:

upon the status quo: Does the plan warrant change? Does the plan warrant the resolution (Justification)?

2592: 576: 564: 528:(CEDA), which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the 2058: 1589:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

1463:(TFA) tournaments. The other major debate organization is the University Interscholastic League (UIL). 2019: 627: 399: 378: 258: 2511: 1373: 587:) but that debate could not have occurred prior to 1895, the year Fairmount College began classes. 580: 489: 31: 1537:

debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season (standard academic school year).

608: 62: 1929:

In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "

2117: 2410: 2400: 2379: 2369: 2346: 2325: 2315: 1858: 1830: 1802: 1774: 1057: 945: 941: 868: 2296: 203: 1957: 872: 591: 568: 560: 414: 2162: 2139: 2545: 2307: 867:

outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the

549: 2581: 2096: 1186:

still look at the debate in an offense/defense framework like a games-playing judge.

563:) beginning in 1897. Additionally, a debate between students from Boston College and 2391:

Leslie Phillips; William S. Hicks; Douglas R. Springer & Maridell Fryar (2001).

2361: 1197: 913: 748: 645: 404: 394: 2393: 1676: 1492: 1287: 1257: 1212: 1082: 967: 919: 805: 668: 409: 145: 1471:

There is no single unified national championship in college debate; though the

1249: 500:

High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including the

2560: 268:

Remove unreferenced sections and original research, restructure article, etc.

17: 2414: 2383: 2329: 1930: 1196:

In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the

2339: 2269: 2194: 2208: 1443: 1248:

Judges who prefer kritik debates may look to who most effectively solves

1153: 929: 513: 2506: 2458: 937: 2550: 1448:

The National Speech and Debate Association National Tournament (NSDA).

2434:

Finding Your Voice: A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate

2431:

Hahn, Allison; Taylor Ward Hahn; and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. (2013).

2037: 1253: 933: 925: 641: 474: 2234: 944:. Kritiks arose in the early 1990s, with the first kritiks based in 788:

advantages: Does the plan deal with the issues presented adequately?

2555: 2034:"Debate Society, School of Communication, Northwestern University" 1218: 883:

Negation Tactic, also known as Negation Theory, contends that the

1407:, and the National Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the 30:

For the general meaning, not specific to debate competition, see

2475: 1529:

policy debate topic, which limited the affirmative agent to the

2572: 2495: 2480: 1760: 1670: 1281: 1076: 961: 799: 662: 241: 139: 77: 36: 1442:

The National Invitational Tournament of Champions (NITOC) of

2500: 1432:

The National Debate Coaches' Association Championship (NDCA)

488:) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each 2491:

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association

1437:

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association

518:

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association

2000:"The Basic Structure of Policy Debate – Policy: DebateUS!" 2528: 2312:

Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture

2490: 632:

Debaters have a specialized form of note taking, called

2485: 640:

for each different macro-argument in the debate round (

2533: 2248: 2081:. Boston College, Office of the University Historian. 1743:

The times and speech order are generally as follows:

2075:

Debate at Boston College: People, Places, Traditions

1260:, ocularcentrism, or other perceived oppressiveness. 2437:. International Debate Education Association Press. 1034:Evidence in debates is organized into units called 170:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. 2392: 2338: 953:disavailed from fouling Grounds in a debate round. 2507:National Federation of High School Association 2481:National Association for Urban Debate Leagues 1659:The 2024-2025 high school resolution will be: 451: 8: 1427:National Association of Urban Debate Leagues 1169:speakers awarded the same number of points. 506:National Association of Urban Debate Leagues 2505:The organization that writes the HS topic: 1705:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 1316:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 1111:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 996:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 834:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 697:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 71:Learn how and when to remove these messages 1745: 458: 444: 320: 2036:. Debate.northwestern.edu. Archived from 1861:of Second Negative by Second Affirmative 1725:Learn how and when to remove this message 1641:The 2022-2023 high school resolution was: 1633:The 2021-2022 high school resolution was: 1625:The 2020-2021 high school resolution was: 1617:The 2019-2020 high school resolution was: 1609:The 2018-2019 high school resolution was: 1601:The 2017–2018 high school resolution was: 1593:The 2016–2017 high school resolution was: 1585:The 2015–2016 high school resolution was: 1577:The 2014–2015 high school resolution was: 1569:The 2013–2014 high school resolution was: 1561:The 2012–2013 high school resolution was: 1553:The 2011–2012 high school resolution was: 1545:The 2010-2011 high school resolution was: 1336:Learn how and when to remove this message 1131:Learn how and when to remove this message 1016:Learn how and when to remove this message 854:Learn how and when to remove this message 717:Learn how and when to remove this message 309:Learn how and when to remove this message 291:Learn how and when to remove this message 230:Learn how and when to remove this message 128:Learn how and when to remove this message 2274:National Speech & Debate Association 1833:of Second Affirmative by First Negative 1777:of First Affirmative by Second Negative 1650:The 2023–2024 high school resolution is: 532:(NFA)) on the collegiate level as well. 91:This article includes a list of general 2163:"25 Tips for Taking a Better Flowsheet" 1973: 1805:of First Negative by First Affirmative 386: 353: 330: 323: 2297:Drills to Improve your Debate Speaking 2118:"ABOUT WSU - Wichita State University" 1415:Other national championships include: 502:National Speech and Debate Association 2072:Donovan, Charles F. (November 1991). 2059:"A Century of Intercollegiate Debate" 1418:The Grand National Tournament of the 7: 2529:Cross Examination Debate Association 1979: 1977: 1703:adding citations to reliable sources 1477:Cross Examination Debate Association 1314:adding citations to reliable sources 1109:adding citations to reliable sources 994:adding citations to reliable sources 832:adding citations to reliable sources 695:adding citations to reliable sources 567:occurred on May 1, 1895, in Boston. 526:Cross Examination Debate Association 168:adding citations to reliable sources 2501:National Debate Coaches Association 2366:Mastering Competitive Debate 7th Ed 2020:"Abbreviated Timeline: Wake Debate" 2486:National Catholic Forensics League 2444:. Lulu Press. ISBN 978-1329109322. 97:it lacks sufficient corresponding 25: 1455:Texas Forensic Association Debate 1425:The National Championship of the 1420:National Catholic Forensic League 1066:National Catholic Forensic League 52:This article has multiple issues. 1675: 1459:In Texas, most debate occurs in 1286: 1081: 966: 891:instead of having to negate the 804: 667: 429: 428: 246: 144: 82: 41: 2470:High school debate associations 2140:"High School Debate at 350 WPM" 1943:Glossary of policy debate terms 1817:Second Affirmative Constructive 1233:Speaking skills/communications: 1189:Examples of paradigms include: 155:needs additional citations for 60:or discuss these issues on the 2459:list of debate theory articles 2314:. Princeton University Press. 2303:. Retrieved December 30, 2005. 1948:Inter-Collegiate policy debate 1761:First Affirmative Constructive 1361:, also called the TOC, at the 346:Inter-collegiate policy debate 1: 2345:. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2249:"Texas Forensics Association" 2138:Kang, Jay (20 January 2012). 530:National Forensic Association 1988:. Dr. Joe Bellon. p. 8. 1845:Second Negative Constructive 869:extinction of the human race 796:Advantages and disadvantages 2440:Hanes, T. Russell. (2008). 1915:Second Affirmative Rebuttal 1789:First Negative Constructive 1531:United States Supreme Court 1481:American Debate Association 573:Washington State University 559:and Trinity College (later 266:. The specific problem is: 2609: 2524:National Debate Tournament 2496:Stoa USA Speech and Debate 2227:"NITOC 2011 Qualification" 2093:"Debate/Forensics History" 1953:Plan inclusive counterplan 1933:," during a debate round. 1887:First Affirmative Rebuttal 1739:Structure of policy debate 1736: 1490: 1473:National Debate Tournament 1461:Texas Forensic Association 1278:Policy debate competitions 1275: 1027: 746: 734:Burdens of the affirmative 625: 606: 522:National Debate Tournament 339:Policy debate competitions 262:to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s 29: 27:Form of competitive debate 2295:Cheshier, David. (2002). 2209:"Rural Debate Initiative" 2191:"Urban Debate QuickFacts" 2061:. Wake Forest University. 2022:. Wake Forest University. 1520:is a statement which the 2512:National Forensic League 2161:Cheshire, David (2000). 1986:The Policy Debate Manual 1901:Second Negative Rebuttal 1409:National Forensic League 1030:Evidence (policy debate) 585:Wichita State University 510:Catholic Forensic League 481:(sometimes shortened to 479:cross-examination debate 2551:ForensicsTournament.net 2518:College debate websites 2368:. Perfection Learning. 2213:Rural Debate Initiative 1963:List of policy debaters 1873:First Negative Rebuttal 1401:Tournament of Champions 1359:Tournament of Champions 775:Significance, or Impact 546:Northwestern University 473:is an American form of 112:more precise citations. 2453:policy debate archives 2442:The "How to" of Debate 2399:. Glenco/McGraw-Hill. 2233:. 2017. Archived from 2231:Stoa Speech and Debate 1405:University of Kentucky 1363:University of Kentucky 938:centralized government 557:Wake Forest University 542:Wake Forest University 887:need only negate the 577:Willamette University 565:Georgetown University 2237:on November 6, 2010. 1984:Bellon, Joe (2008). 1699:improve this section 1487:Institutes and camps 1374:Urban debate leagues 1310:improve this section 1105:improve this section 990:improve this section 828:improve this section 691:improve this section 628:Flow (policy debate) 273:improve this article 164:improve this article 2540:Results/Tournaments 2395:Basic Debate 4th Ed 2360:Dana Hensley & 2337:Joe Miller (2006). 1752:Time (High School) 592:"rebuttal" speeches 581:University of Idaho 490:constructive speech 32:Political criticism 2556:Joy of Tournaments 2197:on April 11, 2008. 2120:. Webs.wichita.edu 1240:Hypothesis tester: 1147:Some circuits see 873:global nuclear war 609:Spreading (debate) 598:Style and delivery 475:debate competition 2352:978-0-374-13194-4 1927: 1926: 1859:Cross-examination 1831:Cross-examination 1803:Cross-examination 1775:Cross-examination 1735: 1734: 1727: 1346: 1345: 1338: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1058:cross-examination 1026: 1025: 1018: 946:deconstructionist 899:Negative strategy 864: 863: 856: 727: 726: 719: 468: 467: 319: 318: 311: 301: 300: 293: 264:quality standards 255:This article may 240: 239: 232: 214: 138: 137: 130: 75: 16:(Redirected from 2600: 2418: 2398: 2387: 2356: 2344: 2333: 2284: 2283: 2281: 2280: 2266: 2260: 2259: 2257: 2255: 2245: 2239: 2238: 2223: 2217: 2216: 2205: 2199: 2198: 2193:. Archived from 2187: 2181: 2180: 2178: 2176: 2167: 2158: 2152: 2151: 2149: 2147: 2135: 2129: 2128: 2126: 2125: 2114: 2108: 2107: 2105: 2104: 2095:. Archived from 2089: 2083: 2082: 2080: 2069: 2063: 2062: 2055: 2049: 2048: 2046: 2045: 2030: 2024: 2023: 2016: 2010: 2009: 2007: 2006: 1996: 1990: 1989: 1981: 1746: 1730: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1710: 1679: 1671: 1524:affirms and the 1522:affirmative team 1341: 1334: 1330: 1327: 1321: 1290: 1282: 1136: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1116: 1085: 1077: 1021: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1001: 970: 962: 942:anthropocentrism 859: 852: 848: 845: 839: 808: 800: 722: 715: 711: 708: 702: 671: 663: 460: 453: 446: 432: 431: 321: 314: 307: 296: 289: 285: 282: 276: 250: 249: 242: 235: 228: 224: 221: 215: 213: 172: 148: 140: 133: 126: 122: 119: 113: 108:this article by 99:inline citations 86: 85: 78: 67: 45: 44: 37: 21: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2578: 2577: 2467: 2407: 2390: 2376: 2359: 2353: 2336: 2322: 2306: 2292: 2287: 2278: 2276: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2253: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2242: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2174: 2172: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2145: 2143: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2123: 2121: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2102: 2100: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2078: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2043: 2041: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2004: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1983: 1982: 1975: 1971: 1958:Resolved (film) 1939: 1755:Time (College) 1741: 1731: 1720: 1714: 1711: 1696: 1680: 1669: 1667:Event structure 1510: 1495: 1489: 1479:(CEDA) and the 1469: 1457: 1397: 1392: 1383: 1371: 1351: 1342: 1331: 1325: 1322: 1307: 1291: 1280: 1274: 1264:Stasis oratory: 1179: 1162: 1137: 1126: 1120: 1117: 1102: 1086: 1075: 1032: 1022: 1011: 1005: 1002: 987: 971: 960: 901: 881: 879:Negation tactic 860: 849: 843: 840: 825: 809: 798: 751: 745: 736: 723: 712: 706: 703: 688: 672: 661: 630: 624: 611: 605: 600: 569:Whitman College 561:Duke University 548:dates to 1855. 538: 464: 415:Impact calculus 315: 304: 303: 302: 297: 286: 280: 277: 270: 251: 247: 236: 225: 219: 216: 179:"Policy debate" 173: 171: 161: 149: 134: 123: 117: 114: 104:Please help to 103: 87: 83: 46: 42: 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2606: 2604: 2596: 2595: 2590: 2580: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2546:Debate Results 2542: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2514: 2509: 2503: 2498: 2493: 2488: 2483: 2478: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2465:External links 2463: 2462: 2461: 2455: 2445: 2438: 2429: 2424: 2419: 2405: 2388: 2374: 2357: 2351: 2334: 2320: 2308:Gary Alan Fine 2304: 2291: 2288: 2286: 2285: 2261: 2240: 2218: 2200: 2182: 2153: 2130: 2109: 2084: 2064: 2050: 2025: 2011: 1991: 1972: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1945: 1938: 1935: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1911: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1897: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1869: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1848: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1778: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1750: 1737:Main article: 1733: 1732: 1715:September 2020 1683: 1681: 1674: 1668: 1665: 1661: 1660: 1652: 1651: 1643: 1642: 1635: 1634: 1627: 1626: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1610: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1594: 1587: 1586: 1579: 1578: 1571: 1570: 1563: 1562: 1555: 1554: 1547: 1546: 1509: 1506: 1491:Main article: 1488: 1485: 1468: 1465: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1440: 1433: 1430: 1423: 1396: 1393: 1391: 1388: 1382: 1379: 1370: 1367: 1350: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1326:September 2020 1294: 1292: 1285: 1276:Main article: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1261: 1243: 1237: 1230: 1223: 1208: 1201: 1178: 1175: 1161: 1160:Speaker points 1158: 1139: 1138: 1121:September 2020 1089: 1087: 1080: 1074: 1071: 1028:Main article: 1024: 1023: 1006:September 2020 974: 972: 965: 959: 956: 955: 954: 950: 923: 917: 911: 900: 897: 880: 877: 862: 861: 844:September 2020 812: 810: 803: 797: 794: 790: 789: 779: 778: 772: 765: 747:Main article: 744: 741: 735: 732: 725: 724: 675: 673: 666: 660: 657: 626:Main article: 623: 620: 607:Main article: 604: 601: 599: 596: 550:Boston College 537: 534: 524:(NDT) and the 466: 465: 463: 462: 455: 448: 440: 437: 436: 425: 424: 423: 422: 417: 412: 407: 402: 397: 389: 388: 387:Argument types 384: 383: 382: 381: 376: 370: 369: 364: 356: 355: 351: 350: 349: 348: 342: 341: 333: 332: 328: 327: 317: 316: 299: 298: 281:September 2020 254: 252: 245: 238: 237: 220:September 2020 152: 150: 143: 136: 135: 118:September 2020 90: 88: 81: 76: 50: 49: 47: 40: 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2605: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2588:Policy debate 2586: 2585: 2583: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2557: 2554: 2552: 2549: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2492: 2489: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2457:U. Vermont's 2456: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2406:0-8442-5981-0 2402: 2397: 2396: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2375:0-931054-70-2 2371: 2367: 2363: 2358: 2354: 2348: 2343: 2342: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2321:0-691-07450-X 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2275: 2271: 2265: 2262: 2250: 2244: 2241: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2222: 2219: 2214: 2210: 2204: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2186: 2183: 2171: 2164: 2157: 2154: 2141: 2134: 2131: 2119: 2113: 2110: 2099:on 2005-12-01 2098: 2094: 2088: 2085: 2077: 2076: 2068: 2065: 2060: 2054: 2051: 2040:on 2007-09-18 2039: 2035: 2029: 2026: 2021: 2015: 2012: 2001: 1995: 1992: 1987: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1968: 1964: 1961: 1959: 1956: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1940: 1936: 1934: 1932: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1828: 1824: 1821: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1729: 1726: 1718: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1694: 1693: 1689: 1684:This section 1682: 1678: 1673: 1672: 1666: 1664: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1532: 1527: 1526:negative team 1523: 1519: 1515: 1507: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1494: 1486: 1484: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1466: 1464: 1462: 1454: 1447: 1445: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1421: 1417: 1416: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1394: 1390:Championships 1389: 1387: 1380: 1378: 1375: 1368: 1366: 1364: 1360: 1354: 1348: 1340: 1337: 1329: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1295:This section 1293: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1271: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1226:Games player: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1194:Stock issues: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1159: 1157: 1155: 1150: 1145: 1135: 1132: 1124: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1090:This section 1088: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1070: 1067: 1061: 1059: 1053: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1031: 1020: 1017: 1009: 999: 995: 991: 985: 984: 980: 975:This section 973: 969: 964: 963: 957: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 924: 921: 918: 915: 914:Disadvantages 912: 909: 906: 905: 904: 898: 896: 894: 890: 886: 878: 876: 874: 870: 858: 855: 847: 837: 833: 829: 823: 822: 818: 813:This section 811: 807: 802: 801: 795: 793: 787: 784: 783: 782: 776: 773: 769: 766: 763: 760: 759: 758: 756: 750: 742: 740: 733: 731: 721: 718: 710: 707:November 2009 700: 696: 692: 686: 685: 681: 676:This section 674: 670: 665: 664: 658: 656: 653: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 629: 621: 619: 615: 610: 602: 597: 595: 593: 588: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 553: 551: 547: 543: 535: 533: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 498: 495: 491: 487: 484: 480: 476: 472: 471:Policy debate 461: 456: 454: 449: 447: 442: 441: 439: 438: 435: 434:Policy debate 427: 426: 421: 418: 416: 413: 411: 408: 406: 403: 401: 398: 396: 393: 392: 391: 390: 385: 380: 377: 375: 372: 371: 368: 365: 363: 360: 359: 358: 357: 352: 347: 344: 343: 340: 337: 336: 335: 334: 329: 326: 325:Policy debate 322: 313: 310: 295: 292: 284: 274: 269: 265: 261: 260: 253: 244: 243: 234: 231: 223: 212: 209: 205: 202: 198: 195: 191: 188: 184: 181: – 180: 176: 175:Find sources: 169: 165: 159: 158: 153:This article 151: 147: 142: 141: 132: 129: 121: 111: 107: 101: 100: 94: 89: 80: 79: 74: 72: 65: 64: 59: 58: 53: 48: 39: 38: 33: 19: 18:Policy Debate 2593:Debate types 2448: 2441: 2432: 2394: 2365: 2362:Diana Carlin 2340: 2311: 2300: 2290:Bibliography 2277:. Retrieved 2273: 2264: 2252:. Retrieved 2243: 2235:the original 2230: 2221: 2212: 2203: 2195:the original 2185: 2173:. Retrieved 2169: 2156: 2144:. Retrieved 2133: 2122:. Retrieved 2112: 2101:. Retrieved 2097:the original 2087: 2074: 2067: 2053: 2042:. Retrieved 2038:the original 2028: 2014: 2003:. Retrieved 1994: 1985: 1928: 1742: 1721: 1712: 1697:Please help 1685: 1662: 1653: 1644: 1636: 1628: 1620: 1612: 1604: 1596: 1588: 1580: 1572: 1564: 1556: 1548: 1539: 1535: 1517: 1513: 1511: 1503: 1500: 1496: 1470: 1458: 1403:held at the 1398: 1384: 1381:Rural debate 1372: 1369:Urban debate 1355: 1352: 1332: 1323: 1308:Please help 1296: 1263: 1245: 1239: 1232: 1225: 1211: 1210: 1204:Policymaker: 1203: 1198:stock issues 1193: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1148: 1146: 1142: 1127: 1118: 1103:Please help 1091: 1062: 1054: 1048: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1033: 1012: 1003: 988:Please help 976: 920:Counterplans 902: 882: 865: 850: 841: 826:Please help 814: 791: 785: 780: 774: 767: 761: 755:stock issues 754: 752: 749:Stock issues 743:Stock issues 737: 728: 713: 704: 689:Please help 677: 654: 650:topicalities 637: 633: 631: 616: 612: 589: 554: 539: 499: 493: 485: 482: 478: 470: 469: 405:Disadvantage 395:Stock issues 331:Organization 324: 305: 287: 278: 271:Please help 267: 256: 226: 217: 207: 200: 193: 186: 174: 162:Please help 157:verification 154: 124: 115: 96: 68: 61: 55: 54:Please help 51: 2573:DelegatePal 2561:Tabroom.com 1508:Resolutions 1493:Debate camp 1475:(NDT), the 1395:High school 1349:Tournaments 1272:Competition 1258:orientalism 1217:: From the 1213:Tabula rasa 889:affirmative 410:Counterplan 275:if you can. 110:introducing 2582:Categories 2279:2022-11-15 2124:2014-05-13 2103:2005-12-01 2044:2014-05-13 2005:2020-03-22 1969:References 1923:6 minutes 1920:5 minutes 1909:6 minutes 1906:5 minutes 1895:6 minutes 1892:5 minutes 1881:6 minutes 1878:5 minutes 1867:3 minutes 1864:3 minutes 1853:9 minutes 1850:8 minutes 1839:3 minutes 1836:3 minutes 1825:9 minutes 1822:8 minutes 1811:3 minutes 1808:3 minutes 1797:9 minutes 1794:8 minutes 1783:3 minutes 1780:3 minutes 1769:9 minutes 1766:8 minutes 1514:resolution 1250:patriarchy 1229:structure. 908:Topicality 893:resolution 579:, and the 516:, and the 483:Cross-X or 420:Topicality 190:newspapers 93:references 57:improve it 1931:prep time 1686:does not 1297:does not 1246:Kritikal: 1177:Paradigms 1154:arguments 1092:does not 1040:tag(line) 977:does not 815:does not 771:advocacy. 768:Inherency 678:does not 362:Structure 63:talk page 2415:34622992 2384:47206277 2364:(2005). 2330:45066311 2310:(2001). 2270:"Topics" 2175:30 March 2146:27 March 1937:See also 1444:Stoa USA 1429:(NAUDL). 1377:debate. 1044:citation 958:Evidence 930:biopower 885:negative 786:Solvency 571:debated 514:Stoa USA 374:Evidence 367:Glossary 257:require 2534:eDebate 2449:Rostrum 2341:Cross-X 2301:Rostrum 2254:27 June 2215:. 2022. 2170:Rostrum 2142:. Wired 1749:Speech 1707:removed 1692:sources 1467:College 1439:(NCFCA) 1318:removed 1303:sources 1113:removed 1098:sources 1073:Judging 998:removed 983:sources 926:Kritiks 836:removed 821:sources 699:removed 684:sources 642:kritiks 634:flowing 622:Flowing 536:History 259:cleanup 204:scholar 106:improve 2447:NFL's 2413: 2403: 2382: 2372: 2349: 2328: 2318: 1917:(2AR) 1903:(2NR) 1889:(1AR) 1875:(1NR) 1847:(2NC) 1819:(2AC) 1791:(1NC) 1763:(1AC) 1254:racism 1236:speed. 940:, and 934:racism 659:Theory 646:disads 354:Format 206: 199: 192: 185: 177: 95:, but 2567:Other 2476:ALOUD 2166:(PDF) 2079:(PDF) 1518:topic 1219:Latin 1207:each. 1036:cards 871:or a 638:flows 603:Speed 211:JSTOR 197:books 2411:OCLC 2401:ISBN 2380:OCLC 2370:ISBN 2347:ISBN 2326:OCLC 2316:ISBN 2256:2013 2177:2012 2148:2012 1690:any 1688:cite 1435:The 1301:any 1299:cite 1096:any 1094:cite 1049:body 981:any 979:cite 819:any 817:cite 762:Harm 682:any 680:cite 494:plan 400:Case 379:Flow 183:news 1701:by 1516:or 1312:by 1222:in. 1149:lay 1107:by 992:by 830:by 693:by 166:by 2584:: 2451:, 2409:. 2378:. 2324:. 2299:. 2272:. 2229:. 2211:. 2168:. 1976:^ 1533:. 1512:A 1256:, 1252:, 936:, 932:, 875:. 648:, 644:, 575:, 512:, 508:, 504:, 486:CX 66:. 2417:. 2386:. 2355:. 2332:. 2282:. 2258:. 2179:. 2150:. 2127:. 2106:. 2047:. 2008:. 1728:) 1722:( 1717:) 1713:( 1709:. 1695:. 1422:. 1339:) 1333:( 1328:) 1324:( 1320:. 1306:. 1134:) 1128:( 1123:) 1119:( 1115:. 1101:. 1019:) 1013:( 1008:) 1004:( 1000:. 986:. 857:) 851:( 846:) 842:( 838:. 824:. 720:) 714:( 709:) 705:( 701:. 687:. 459:e 452:t 445:v 312:) 306:( 294:) 288:( 283:) 279:( 233:) 227:( 222:) 218:( 208:· 201:· 194:· 187:· 160:. 131:) 125:( 120:) 116:( 102:. 73:) 69:( 34:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index