Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/30

Click to flip

30 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
A widely held belief, or bias, or attitude that prevents the problem identified by the affirmative from being solved within the status quo.
Attitudinal Inherency
a i
The operational strategy drafted by the advocates on one side of the proposition for the purpose of coordinating their reasoning and evidence and presenting their position with maximum effectiveness
Case
c
The argument that because a problem exists it must be inherent in the status quo.
Existential Inherency
e i
The probability of future harm. The affirmative must prove that the significant harm it identifies is built into the essential nature of the status quo through legal structures ad or societal attitudes
Inherency
i
A case that in and of itself provides good and sufficient reason for adopting the proposition. It must provide effective issue statements to answer each of the stock issue questions.
Prima facie case
p f c
The degree of importance or impact attached to an issue. The advocate must prove that the essential elements of the case are quantitatively and or qualitatively important. Also applies to the relative importance of an argument
Significance
s
(1) A structural barrier that necessarily prevents something from being done, or (2) a structural gap, the absence of a structure necessay to permit something to be done.
Structural Inherency
s i
The benefits or gains that the affirmative claims will result from adopting its plan, which must be shown to outweigh the disadvantages
Advantages
a
Situation in which the affirmative accepts the goals of the status quo and argues that its plan is a better way of attaining these goals and that its plan will produce greater advantages than the status quo.
Comparative advantages case
c a c
The standard on the basis of which a decision is to be made. A major issue in value debate; sometimes used in policy debate
Criteria
c
A substantial measure of importance
Impact
i
Refers to the evils or important problems existing in the status quo and requiring remedy. Used interchangeably with harm
Need
n
The affirmative’s method of solving the problem claimed in the justification as needs or harms. It must produce the advantage claimed by the affirmative.
Plan
p
The ability of a plan to work and to reduce the harm identified by the affirmative.
Solvency
s
Converting a negative’s disadvantage into an affirmative advantage. In common usage any statement that one turns against the originator.
Turnaround
t
The obligation of the negative to refute at least one of the issues of the affirmative. Otherwise the affirmative will prevail.
Burden of rebuttal
b o r
Argument by the negative that it may abandon advocacy of the counterplan of certain conditions prevail
Conditional counterplan
c c
The undesirable consequences that the negative claims will flow from the affirmative’s plan. These must be shown to outweigh the advantages
Disadvantages
d
Disadvantages that may be applied to a number of possible affirmative plans.
Generic disadvantages
g d
In a value debate, the values expressed in the resolution or argued by the debaters. In a comparative advantages case the affirmative argues that it can reach the agreed on objectives of the status quo in a better way than the status quo can.
Goals
g
A test of competition of a counterplan offered by the affirmative
Permutation
p
Brief versions of arguments to be expanded upon later in the debate
Shells
s
The argument that a seemingly harmless proposal in the affirmative’s plan would be an irreversible first step leading inevitably to the most deleterious disadvantages.
Slippery slop argument
s s a
A counterplan that might be used as an affirmative plan under some definitions of the resolution but is nontopical with regard to the operational definition the affirmative has chosen to use. Once the affirmative has parametrically defined the resolution, almost any mutually exclusive plan may constitute grounds for a counterplan
Topical counterplan
t c
The state of conformity to the intent of the debate resolution. A plan is topical if it justifies the full intent of the resolution, the needs are solved, or the comparative advantages are gained as a direct result of the planks in the plan that implement the resolution.
Topicality
t
counterplan proposed by the negative that mandates that the nation or the world will be arranged in a manner consistent with anarchy, world government, socialism, authoritarianism, or some other future strategy and claims that this strategy will better solve the problem that the federal government or whatever agency of change is provided in the propostition.
Utopian counterplan
u c
In value debate, the negative argument that undesirable consequences will flow from adoption of the affirmative’s case. Similar to a disadvantage in policy debate.
Value objections
v o
An outline of a debate, with the arguments presented in each speech recorded in vertical columns and arranges so that a person can follow horizontally the flow of each argument as it evolves progressively through all the speeches in a debate.
Flow sheet
f s
Argumentation meant to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning by introducing other evidence and reasoning that will destroy its effect. Also, the second speech by each advocate in an academic debate
Rebuttal
r
Argumentation meant to overcome opposing evidence and reasoning that it is false or erroneous.
Refutation
r