Debate Final

Front 1

That position which is most consistent with the Constitutional law should win

Back 1

Constitutionality

Front 2

The position which absorbs, supersedes, or subsumes the opponent's claims should win.

Back 2

Anteriority

Front 3

The relative costs and benefits of adopting a value position are weighed against not adopting it.

Back 3

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Front 4

This criteria claims that the ends, means, and intent of a given position need to be in compliance with a previously cited value

Back 4

Ends-Means Analysis

Front 5

The most urgently needed or most threatened hierarchy, as publicly recognized, should win.

Back 5

Exigence and Salience

Front 6

That position which maximizes individual liberty should win.

Back 6

Freedom/Liberty Maximization

Front 7

That position which benefits future generations the most should win.

Back 7

Futurism

Front 8

That position which can be scientifically proven to be true should win.

Back 8

Hypothosis Testing

Front 9

On the hierarchy of human needs, that position which most completely fufills an individuals needs should win.

Back 9

Maslow's Hierarchy.

Front 10

That position which is the ultimate goal of a value decision and an action can be shown to be moral if it should universally apply to all people in all situations.

Back 10

Normative Standard

Front 11

That position which best reflects the values of society should win.

Back 11

Social values

Front 12

the superior position in a round needs to prove to be universally accepted by all people in similar situations

Back 12

Universality

Front 13

That position which achieves the most of a specified value should win.

Back 13

Value Maximization or Utilitarianism

Front 14

The ability of the affirmative plan to function

Back 14

workability

Front 15

the debators who are arguing in favor of adopting the resolution

Back 15

affirmative

Front 16

The reasons why the judges decide to give the decision to one team instead of the other.

Back 16

voting issues

Front 17

the 1st speech given by the debators

Back 17

constructive speech

Front 18

the concept that the affirmative plan and case must deal with the subject for debate and prove why the topic should be adopted

Back 18

topicality

Front 19

a debate format with a questioning period b/w constructives

Back 19

cross-examination debate

Front 20

a debate with two-person teams

Back 20

team debate

Front 21

a harm resulting from the adoption of the affirmative plan

Back 21

disadvantage

Front 22

a debate format with no questioning periods

Back 22

standard debate

Front 23

the outline of a disadvantage given by the negative

Back 23

disadvantage shell

Front 24

the ability of the affirmative to solve needs or gain advantages

Back 24

solvency

Front 25

the logical division of arguments by the negative team

Back 25

division of labor

Front 26

one complete debate

Back 26

round

Front 27

competitive speech events

Back 27

individual events

Front 28

the subject for debate

Back 28

resolution

Front 29

the barrier which keeps the status quo from achieving the affirmative case rationale

Back 29

inherency

Front 30

evidence and argumentation which deny the validity of the opponent's position

Back 30

refutation

Front 31

a debate using a proposition of value

Back 31

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Front 32

the second speech given by the debaters

Back 32

rebuttal

Front 33

the debaters arguing against the adoption of the resolution

Back 33

negative

Front 34

the debate topic which centers on a values conflict

Back 34

proposition of value

Front 35

the specific approach the negative will uphold throughout the debate

Back 35

negative position

Front 36

the debate topic which calls for a determination of fact

Back 36

proposition of fact

Front 37

the debate topic which argues for or against a particular course of action

Back 37

proposition of policy

Front 38

a debate on a policy topic

Back 38

policy debate

Front 39

the max amount of time used by each team b/w speeches

Back 39

preparation time

Front 40

aka bandwagon fallacy, agrument is valid because everyone supports it.

Back 40

appeals to popular opinion

Front 41

fallacy suggesting one follow a course of action because it is how it has always been done

Back 41

appeals to tradition

Front 42

fallacy occuring when a debater doesn't listen to an entire argument and argues what they thought their opponent would say.

Back 42

hasty generalization

Front 43

negates the source of evidence

Back 43

ad hominem

Front 44

suggests that if a plan is adopted, many disastrous events will occur

Back 44

slippery slope

Front 45

occurs when the evidence and claim are treated as the same thing

Back 45

appeal to authority

Front 46

this fallacy occurs when debaters do not recognize the definition for a term defined by the opponent

Back 46

equivocation

Front 47

a complete thought process for evaluating a given subject.

Back 47

value system

Front 48

a theoretical pattern which takes a perspective and places it in context

Back 48

model

Front 49

basis on which reasoning proceeds

Back 49

premise

Front 50

standard by which the debate should be judged

Back 50

criteria