Chapter 10 Flashcards
Rationale
Reasons for adopting a resolution presented through observations, contentions, or advantages
Plan
Affirmative’s proposal for putting the resolution into effect. It should solve needs or gain new advantages
Status quo
Present system of laws, programs, policies etc
Should
Means that the proposed case ought to be adopted, not that it will be
Should would argument
When the negative team argues that the affirmative plan won’t be passed
Fiat
“Let it be done”
Affirmative can argue that whether or not their plan would be passed it should still be accepted in the debate
Burden of proof
The affirmative is obligated to show why the status quo is not working. They must use evidence
Prima Facie case
“On the face of things”
Affirmative has to provide evidence and reasons so judges and listeners will accept their position on face value
Issues
Important questions and considerations. They’re the basis for structuring affirmative cases
Stock issues
Fundamental requirements for a debate
Topicality
Must fall in the scope of the topic
Framers intent
What did the authors of the resolution expect it to be about?
Extra topicality
Providing a solution to the problem that is outside the scope of the problem
Plan spikes
Additions to the plan that explain things like funding or enforcement
Effects topicality
When the resolution requires substantial change but the plan provides minimal change
Harms
Show a problem with the status quo
Can be physical, monetary, or a social discrimination/deprivation of rights
How can harms be presented?
Quantitative-measurable numeric form
Qualitative-improves quality of system
Future-needs to be solved in the future
Inherency
Status quo won’t be enough to change the problem, coming from the structure or lack of a program.
Attitudinal Inherency
Attitudes rather than structures cause problems
How does a plan need uniqueness?
If the status quo can also gain the advantages of the plan, the case has no Inherency or uniqueness
Solvency
Plan must be capable of solving the problem. It can’t create workability or practicality problems, including availability of funds
What shouldn’t the affirmative plan do?
Create new disadvantages or have the advantages outweighed by them
Paradigm
A model or way of viewing the world
What was the original model of debate?
The legal model- the status quo was on trial
Policy maker model of debate
The plan is emphasized
Tabula rosa
Blank slate- senators argue the merits for their case as well as the paradigm from which their case should be judged
Social science model
Senators and judges search for truth
Educational paradigm
Judge evaluates based on argumentation
Direct clash
The affirmative has the right to define and limit the problem area, while the negative must provide direct clash to the area selected.
Negative presumption
The negative defends the present system until the status quo is adequately indicted. If negative can show the affirmative case is not prima Facie it makes a good argument
Burden of rejoinder
The negative must present evidence and documentation to go against the affirmative case
Negative bloc
Negative constructive and rebuttal are back to back and can be combined into one speech, giving the affirmative one speech to respond to twice the arguments
Division of Labor
Both members need clearly defined notes for their speeches with evidence
What is the affirmative divided into?
Rationale and plan
