1

Basic Debate Terminology

Ad hominem- attacking your opponent personally rather than her/his argument. Ad hominem
is fallacious argumentation.
Add ones, Added advantages- extra advantages claimed by the Aff after the 1st
Affirmative constructive. These may be entirely new advantages claimed from the
Affirmative plan, significant extensions or expansions of smaller points barely mentioned in
the first Aff. Constructive (maybe only in a shell), or turn arounds of Negative arguments.
Advantage- a benefit accrued by the Aff. plan. The advantage may be qualitative or
quantitative or both.
Affirmative- the side that advocates change through the adoption of the resolution. The
Affirmative must present a reasonable interpretation of the resolution through an adequate
definition of terms and/or operationally define the resolution in the Aff. Plan. The affirmative
must overcome the presumption for the status quo with a prima facie case.
Alternative causality- others causes than those first presented for some consequent. This
type of argumentation usually appears when someone wishes to claim that something has
multiple causes and that the first causes mentioned are not primary causes or the main
causes for some problem or consequent.
Alternative justification- a type of affirmative case that offers two or more parallel and
independent Aff plans each with its own set of advantages within one overall Aff case
supporting the debate resolution.
Analogy-method of reasoning based on comparisons. There are literal and figurative
analogies.
Analysis- discovery and selection of key ideas; systematic inquiry into a proposition to locate
the main issues.
Argument- a conclusion supported by proof. Proof consists of analysis and/or reasoning
and/or evidence that supports the conclusion.
Assertion- an unsupported statement or claim
Attitudinal inherency- a type of inherency wherein the advocate claims that those in a
position of power are so biased or prejudiced in a certain direction that action is impossible or
extremely unlikely.
Ballot- the decision in a debate round. A judge casts a ballot for either the Aff or the Neg and
gives her/his reasons for this decision. Often speaker ranks and points are also given on the
ballot.
Block/brief- a set of prepared arguments to include analysis/reasoning and evidence on a
specific point. Blocking is the process of preparing such arguments in advance of a debate or
during a debate. A brief contains the blocked arguments (analysis + evidence specific to the
issue issues involved)
Brink/threshold- point at which an occurence is very likely to take place

.
Burden of proof- the obligation of him or her who asserts to prove their points. The burden of
the Aff. Team to overcome the presumption for the status quo and so establish a prima facie
case. Both sides have the burden of rejoinder meaning they must answer the relevant
arguments of their opponents to keep the debate progressing.
Canned arguments/ blocks/briefs- prepared arguments applied to a specific contention or
argument or case. Excellent when the analysis and evidence really are applicable and
relevant to the debate but has a negative connotation because so frequently the analysis
and/or evidence doesn't really apply or isn't relevant and the debater is using the "canned
argument"instead of thinking and really clashing.
Causal link- analysis which relates a cause to an effect. Debate is dependent on a great deal
of causal analysis. The affirmative must identify and remove the causes of a problem without
creating significant new problems. Somewhere in the debate the Aff must link their problems
to causes which they eliminate or mask and the Neg. must link its disadvantages to the Aff.
Plan by showing how the plan causes those disadvantages.
Circumvention- to get around or avoid; usually some loophole in the Aff plan or some
problem in the Aff plan which will prevent its workability, practicality, or solvency.
Clash- consists of fundamental opposing arguments on the key issues. One of the most
fundamental goals of the debate process is to promote good clash, the Aff and Neg taking
opposite stances on key issues.
Comparative advantage case- criteria or goals case; a case admitting limited success for
the status quo programs but calling for improvements in efficiency, coordination, speed,
guarantees, enforcement, etc. The comparative advantage case compares the Aff solution to
the status quo programs and claims "comparative advantage/s" over the status quo
mechanisms.
Condusionary evidence- opinions given without reasons for the opinions. Usually a weak
kind of evidence.
Conditional argument- an argument made only on the basis of some given assumption. If
the assumption is not given or does not sustain attack, the argument based on the
assumption falls also. Applies to conditional counterplans et al.
Constructive speech- one of the first four speeches in an academic debate during which the
Aff and Neg establish their fundamental positions and arguments. New arguments or
constructive arguments are allowed in constructive speeches. New arguments are not
allowed in rebuttals where the purpose is to clarify and/or extend previously made arguments
not to construct new argumentation.
Contention- a statement of significance taking a definite stand on an issue. A contention is an
argumentative statement or position supported by proof. Quite often this refers to Aff need
contentions or advantages.
Contradiction- statements or arguments related to a given point which are in direct
opposition to one another.
Cost-beneift analysis- analysis weighing the positive gains of an action versus the negative
detriments of that action. The process of on balance analysis.

Cross-examination- a form of debate in which debaters are permitted to ask direct questions
of their opponents during specified question periods, usually immediately following the
opponent's constructive speeches. A title for the question periods.
Counterplan- meeting an Aff case by agreeing with the need for change or advantages but
proposing a counterplan which it will be claimed will better meet the Aff need or better gain
the Aff advantages without having to adopt the resolution. Some say the counterplan must be
nontopical, competitive, exclusive, etc. Some say the counterplan must gain additional
advantages. There are many types of counterplan (agent of change counterplan, studies
counterplan, state vs. federal action counterplans, conditional counter plans etc. )
Debate- a process of inquiry and advocacy seeking reasoned judgment on a proposition.
Debate allows for two or more sides advocating their positions on a given issues under some
set of rules with some kind of judgment to follow from a judge or audience.
Deduction- arguing from a general principle-to a specific case. Opposite of induction which
argues from specific cases or data to a general conclusion.
Definition of terms- explaining the meaning of the key terms or phrases in a resolution. Can
be accomplished utilizing dictionary definitions, expert definitions, derivation, operational
definitions, terms in context, etc.
Dilemma- an argument that presents an opponent with a two option forced choice neither of
which offers desirable outcomes for the opponent.
Direct refutation- type of Neg attack in which the Neg denies the claims of the Aff pt by pt.
The Aff can also directly pt by pt deny Neg argumentation.
Division of labor- division of responsibilities between the debate speakers esp. as applied to
the Neg. Generally, the first Neg argues topicality, terms, inherency, significance, and
methodological challenges while the second Neg. argues solvency and disadvantages. These
tradtional divisions of responsibility can be changed dependent on the needs of a given topic
and debate.
Dropped argument- an argument which is never responded to by an opponent or which is
not brought up again after an opponent's response to it.
Effects topicality- Trying to be topical indirectly through the effects of a plan or proposition
analysis which itself is not directly topical.
Ellipses- Dots . . . used to indicate that material has been deleted from a quotation.
Ellipses should be avoided or used extremely carefully by debaters lest there be suspicion
that crucial material has been left out.
Emory switch- A Negative strategy where the Ist Negative attacks the plan and the 2nd
Negative attacks the case instead of the more traditional method where the 1st Negative
attacks the case side and 2nd Negative attacks plan side.
Enforcement- a plank or planks in the Aff plan seeking to ensure that the Aff mandates will
be carried out.

Enforcement can consist of carrots (rewards) for action or sticks (punishments) for inaction or
malfeasance.
Evidence- anything used to generate proof or support for an assertion; facts, opinions,
illustrations, examples, analogies, and statistics.
Extension- furthering an argument through additional analysis or evidence especially as
related to such arguments given in the rebuttal periods of a debate.
Extratopicality- actions above and beyond those called for in the resolution taken by the Aff.
The Aff cannot or should not be allowed to take credit for advantages gained by extratopical
means.
Fallacy- a mistaken inference; faulty reasoning; a seemingly reasonable argument which is
actually unsound or flawed.
Fiat power- the right of the Aff to demonstrate only that its plan should be implemented rather
than that it will be. The Aff has the right to decree reasonable plan planks into existence but
cannot exceed this reasonability.
Flip/turnaround- a claim that an opponents argument actually supports one's own position.
A turned disadvantage would actually be an advantage for the Aff.
Flow-the gestalt of the debate or state of the issues in the debate.
Flowsheet- a systematic notetaking device for organizing (charting) following the arguments
(issues) in a debate.
Generic argument- a common argument which can be applied to several cases or positions
on a resolution.
Generic disadvantage- a disadvantage that applies to the resolution itself or to many Aff
case analyses of the resolution.
Goals criteria Aff- a type of Aff comparative advantage case explicitly stating the goals,
criteria, rubrics, or evaluative standards to be used for comparative purposes. Grouping
arguments (lumping and dumping)- handling several interrelated arguments simultaneously.
Harm- a problem in the status quo constituing a need for a change.
Hasty generalization- a conclusion based on too few examples or examples which aren't
typical or representative of a class. A type of fallacious argument.
Hypothesis testing judge- a judge who accepts the scientific analogy for debate judges
associated with Zarefsky and who will accept any Negative attack hypothetically or
conditionally whether contradictory or not.
Implementation- the method for putting a plan or program into effect.
Independent advantage- an Aff comparative advantage that is supposedly simultaneously
topical, unique, and significant enough unto itself to warrant adoption of the resolution or at
least serve as a partial independent warrant for the adoption of the resolution.

Induction- the use of specific instances or examples to formulate more general conclusions.
Inherency- conditions inseparable from the status quo; problems calling for fundamental
structural change. Problems calling for changes in the law or fundamental reorganization of
the current system or policy.
A. Structural inherency- change of law, organization or structure of the status quo is
necessary for proposition to be adopted and effective.
B. Attitudinal inberency- calls for change in attitudes, ways of thinking, ways of enforcing
the law, etc.
Issue- a fundamental question involved in the proposition; an issue is an inherent and vital
question within the proposition; each important contention of the Aff can become an issue
when it is really of vital importance to the proposition and when it is clashed with by the
Neg.
A. Pulling an issue- synthesizing, clarifying, and summarizing key pts in the debate.
B. Voting issues- the most important issues in the debate.
C. Debated issues- those important questions in the debate upon which there was significant
clash.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate- a debate format involving only one speaker on each side as
opposed to team debate.
Meatball-a common generic disadvantage
Methodological indictment- an attack demanding justification for a study's condusion in
terms of the reliability or validity of the study methods or procedures.
Minor repair- a negative position that a small non-structural change or modification in the
status guo is all that is necessary versus adoption of the Aff.
Need or harm- an inherent problem or evil in the status quo which calls for or demands
change.
Need Plan or Traditional Case- an organizational scheme and analytical framework for the
Aff in which the Aff claims that certain significant inherent evils (harms) in the status quo can
be overcome by adopting the Aff plan which meets the debate resolution.
Negative- the side that opposes the adoption of the resolution. The Negative must defend the
status quo or the status quo with modifications (repairs) or counterplan in opposition to the
Aff.
Negative block- the second negative constructuve speech followed by the first negative
rebuttal. With proper division of labor the Negative team should be "stacking up" Neg
positions and arguments during this period of time making it difficult for the 1st Aff rebuttalist
to respond.
`- An Aff case that fails to meet the resolution by failing to justify all terms included in the
resolution.
A. Letter of the resolution- failing to meet the terms of the resolution.
B. Spirit of the resolution- failing to fall within the realm of reasonably acceptable
interpretations of the debate resolution. Falling outside the parameters of the topic area
.

Observation- a general preliminary remark usually concerning assumptions underlying

Various arguments.
On balance- net benefits versus disadvantages usual judging paradigm of policy maker
Judges and some others.
Operational definition-a definition through description of actions. In debate a definition
through the provisions of the Aff. Plan.
Overviews- preliminary observation concerning a number of arguments to follow. As
Opposed to under view, a concluding observation tying a number of previous arguments
together.
Paraphrase- to restate something in your own words.
Plan- a specific program of action proposed by the Aff team to implement the debate
resolution.
Plan plank- a step in the Aff plan. An action that will be taken by the Aff to meet their need or
gain their advantage. Aff plan planks concern authority or agent of action, mandates (actions
to be taken), enforcement, financing. plan interpretation, etc.
Plan spike- a plan plank meant to prevent or diminish the effectiveness of a Neg plan
attack.
Plan attack- a solvency practicality workability argument or a disadvantage.
Power matching- a tournament technique matching teams of similar records. After 4 rounds
for example 4-0 teams should meet one another, 3-l's, 2-2's, 1-3's, and 0-4's. This technique
is often used to narrow the number of teams in competition. High high competition means #1
meets #2 etc. High low within brackets competition means top 4-0 meets bottom 4-0.
Practicality- the feasibility or real world possibility of the Aff plan. Often also called or mixed
with solvency workability.
Preemptive argument- an argument given in anticipation of another argument hoping to
answer that argument in advance .
preperation time- time allowed to a debater for preparation before rising to speak. Usually a
debate team will be given 5-10 minutes of "prep time" to be distributed between the two
speakers as the team wishes before all their speeches in a debate,
Presumption- the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless
adequate reasons are given for change. The status quo, the existing state of affairs, is given
the benefit of any doubt. The status quo preoccupies ground. Presumption is in favor of the
Negative in a debate unless the Aff has assumed the burden of proof and established a prima
facie case. Presumption is not that the status quo is good just that it should continue unless
adequate reasons are given for change.
Prima facie case- a case that would convince the average reasonable and prudent person
that a proposal for change is warranted; logical and convincing arguments for change, one
strong enough to stand unless and until logical and convincing arguments are introduced

against them. A case which is topical, inherent, significant, solvent (workable and practical),
and advantageous is, in formal academic debate, a prima facie case.
Proof- logic/reasoning and/or evidence in support of a statement or conclusion.
Proposition topic/resolution- a formally expressed judgment or opinion of a controversial
nature; a statement to be debated or supported; a sentence in which the predicate affirms or
denies something concerning the subject; the subject for debate. There are three basic types
of propositions; fact, value, and policy. TECHNICALLY
PROPOSITIONS, TOPICS AND RESOLUTIONS DIFFER BUT ARE USUALLY USED
INTERCHANGEABLY IN DEBATE.
Reasoning- logic; the process of drawing correct conclusions based on premises.
Rebuttal- combined method of attack on opponents arguments with defense of your own
arguments. Also, a specific time period in the debate after the constructive speeches in which
issues are supposed to be clarified, synthesized, summarized, and highlighted for the judge/s.
Refutation- attack on an argument by attacking the underlying reasoning, or evidence in
support of the argument or both. Often, technically incorrectly, but often used interchangeably
with rebuttal.
Repair- a minor nonstructural change in the status quo which helps the present system to
function better without changing its fundamental nature.
Sandbagging- holding off on presenting the bulk of an argument till later presenting the
argument initially in cursory form or in a shell or in weakened form expecting later to very
much expand the argument. Negative connotation is tricking the opponent Vis sandbagging.
Shift- to abandon an original argument and take an altered position.
Should- ought to but not necessarily will.
Should/would argument- the Aff only must show that their plan is desirable and should be
adopted not that it will be adopted. If the Negative argues it won't be, that is the fallacy of
should/would argumentation and the Aff need only answer it should be.
Significance- sufficiency of the importance of the contentions as related to the issues. The
importance of the problems solved or the advantages to be gained either quantitatively or
qualitatively or both. The Aff must meet significant needs (solve significant harms) or gain
significant advantages. The Neg wishes to have significant disadvantages, disadvantages
which have "impact" on the Aff.
Solvency- how much of the problem will the Aff meet with its plan. How much of the claimed
advantages can the Aff gain with its plan? How practical workable are the Aff plan planks.
Spread or shotgun- the tactic of throwing out many arguments in a short period of time to
force your opponents into a position where they cannot adequately answer or become
confused; quite often a very bad strategy as it promotes shallow analysis and hurts good
clash. Still, debate places a premium on a large number of relevant quality arguments in a
brief given amount of time.

Squirrel case- a nontopical case or merely a very unusual interpretation of the resolution.
Perjoratively used to describe a poor case.
Statistics- facts and figures that have been systematically collected and ordered to show
relationships; a number that summarizes and signifies a large mass of numbers; figures which
compress large amounts of data into more meaningful forms; figures which allow inferences
to be made about a population based on a sampling of its members.
Status quo- the present system or existing order; the existing state of affairs.
Stock issues- major questions in any proposition of policy. Usually the classic debate stock
issues are topicality, inherency, significance, solvency, and advantages versus disadvantages.
Study- a systematic investigation of a problem; an analysis utilizing prescribed methodology.
Study counterplan- a specific type of counterplan calling for study of a problem rather than
the action/s proposed by the Aft.
Tabula rasa- blank slate; a judge who claims to be without preconception or bias Vis the topic
and often vis debate strategy/tactics.
Time allocation- strategic choices in use of time by debaters to emphasize key issues and
cover important arguments.
Topicality- whether or not the Aff team advocates a policy system that meets the letter and
spirit of the resolution.
A. Letter of the resolution- does the Aff case take those actions or affirm those positions
demanded by the resolution.
B. Spirit of the resolution- does the Aff case argue the issues on the topic that the average
intelligent informed citizen would think should be the key issues within the context of the topic.
Sometimes does the Aff case argue the issues that an expert in the topic area would think
should be the key issues within the context of the topic?
Turnaround argument- reversing an argument by an opponent to show that the argument
actually favors your side particularly taking Negative disadvantages and demonstrating these
disadvantages are actually advantages favoring the Aff. position.
Under view- observation made after a series of arguments summarizing some common
assumption or trait of those arguments.
Uniqueness- inherency for a comparative advantage or a disadvantage as the advantage or
disadvantage inheres flows from the Aff plan or not.
Voting issues- the key issues in the debate upon which the judge/s decision should turn.
The most important issues in the debate.
Workability/solvency/practicality- whether the plan of the Aff is practical, Will the plan gain
the advantages or meet the needs in the real world? Could the Aff plan work in practice as
well as just theoretically?