[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

af¤rmative debaters to support the value of energy develop-
ment, while the negative is directed to support the value of
environmental protection.
2. Alternative criteria. The negative may wish to offer different
118 Appendix
decision rules for evaluating the hierarchy of values or the
debate (see chapter 5, under  Analyzing Value Propositions
Through Stock Issues).
3. Value objections. The negative may analyze the logical im-
pacts of adoption of the resolution and offer objections as
independent reasons for rejecting the proposition and the
value it supports. These objections are not the same as direct
refutation to the speci¤cs of the af¤rmative case but rather
stem from the resolution itself. Many negative teams prepare
their value objections in advance of the debate on the basis
of their independent analysis of the problems inherent in the
value expressed by the proposition.
4. Straight refutation. As in policy-oriented debate, the nega-
tive always has the option to attack the af¤rmative case point
by point.
Each of these options may be used in combination with any
other to some degree. Our advice here is similar to that we gave
to negative teams working with policy propositions. Number 4 is
always appropriate and can easily be combined with any others.
As you advance in experience and con¤dence, you may attempt
other combinations that are appropriate to your level of pro¤-
ciency and the approach called for by the topic or the af¤rmative
case.
The options presented above are intended to serve as an intro-
duction to the debate cases that are standard, or stock, approaches.
While they have developed because they are useful in a variety of
situations, they are not the only case formats. We suggest that you
learn these fundamental approaches thoroughly before you at-
tempt more dif¤cult types. Beginning debaters should remember
that there are no strategic advantages to be gained from trying to
run unusual cases against other beginners. It takes great skill to
present an unusual format, and if the af¤rmative case is not pre-
sented with clarity and precision, the af¤rmative will lose, not the
surprised negative. Consult your instructors for suggested read-
ings on advanced debate.
Glossary
affirmative side. The speaker or team that undertakes to
secure audience acceptance of the truth of the debate propo-
sition.
analogy. A type of argument that asserts that if the facts re-
lating to A and the facts relating to B are alike in certain
known respects, they will be alike in another respect.
analysis. The process of thinking through a subject and dis-
covering the issues; systematic inquiry.
argument. An assertion that implies the result of reasoning
or proof.
assertion. An unsupported statement.
bibliography. A systematic compilation of references on a
given subject.
block. A brief of arguments, including reasoning and evi-
dence, prepared in advance of a debate to apply against ex-
pected lines of opponents argument.
brief. A carefully prepared, complete outline of one side in a
debate, including the evidence to support each point.
case. All the assembled proof available for determining the
truth of the proposition (for the af¤rmative) or the untruth
of the proposition (for the negative); the brief developed in
full with analysis, reasoning, and evidence.
cause. A type of argument that asserts that if fact A occurs,
fact B will necessarily follow from it.
ceda. The Cross Examination Debate Association, a national
organization with the purpose of promoting educational de-
bate and dedicated to teaching the principles of persuasive
and communicative argumentation. CEDA selects debate
propositions, frequently concerning values, for debate at
119
120 Glossary
approved tournaments and compiles rankings of schools on
the basis of performance at those tournaments.
clash. The direct opposition between the af¤rmative and the
negative cases, created by narrowing the controversy to its
essential issues.
constructive speech. The main speech in a debate for
each speaker, in which all issues to be considered in the
debate are presented.
contention. An argumentative statement that forms a main
heading in the constructive outline and is supported by argu-
ments and evidence.
counterplan. In policy debates, a negative strategy that ac-
cepts the need but offers an alternative solution.
counterwarrant. In value-oriented debate, a negative
strategy that argues for the acceptance of an alternative
value structure from that called for by the resolution.
criticism. Comments provided by a judge or teacher with
the intent of explaining an evaluation and indicating areas in
need of improvement.
cross-examination. The process of asking questions of
opposing speakers.
debate. Formal oral controversy consisting of the systematic
presentation of opposing arguments on a selected topic.
delivery. The communication of ideas to an audience
through verbal and nonverbal means.
evidence. Matters of fact or opinion offered as support or
proof for assertions advanced.
example. A type of argument that asserts a generalization
based on the qualities of a speci¤c instance or instances.
fallacy. Any defect in reasoning that destroys its validity.
flow sheet. A method of taking notes during a debate that
enables the debater or listener to keep track of the develop-
ment of an argument throughout successive speeches. It rep-
resents the ®ow of argument in the debate.
forensics. Speaking for judgment, often used to designate
competitive interscholastic speech activities, such as debate.
In this context, forensics is an educational activity primarily
Glossary 121
concerned with using an argumentative perspective in exam-
ining problems and communicating with people.
issue. A conclusion that must be proved in order to establish
that the proposition ought to be adopted; it appears in the
debate as a key assertion.
judge. The person who evaluates a debate.
Lincoln-Douglas debate. Format in which one person
confronts another in the tradition of the famous historical
debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.
ndt. National Debate Tournament; also, a shorthand term to
designate policy proposition debate and the style of presenta-
tion associated with it.
need issue. In policy-centered debate, an assertion by the
af¤rmative side that there is need for a substantial change in
the status quo.
negative side. The speaker or team that undertakes to pre-
vent the af¤rmative side from securing acceptance of the
debate proposition.
observation. A preliminary remark that usually lays out a
basic assumption or context prior to the presentation of con-
tentions in a debate case.
outline. A carefully prepared structural pattern for a speech
or case that clari¤es the relationship of ideas in the message
by placing information in a reasoned sequence and by indi-
cating the coordinate and subordinate relationship of ideas.
parliamentary debate. A debate format that fosters com-
municative reasoning, often using extemporaneous topics
and nomenclature adapted from parliamentary forms of gov-
ernment.
prima facie case. A case that establishes such a high de-
gree of probability that the proposition would be accepted
unless the case is refuted; usually established in the ¤rst
af¤rmative constructive speech.
proof. Support for an idea or argument that the speaker of-
fers to create belief in an audience. In debate, it consists of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]