Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

NPDA > Lingo / Vocab > Flashcards

Lingo / Vocab Flashcards

1
Q

On-Case Args

A

PMC Constructive + Extensions - Advantages of Plan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Off-Case Args

A

Neg Advocacies that aren’t rebuttals of Aff args - Disads, CP, K, Topicality, Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Counterplan

A

Off-Case arg that is a counterproposal action to solve Harms of Aff’s case and is better than Plan (Net-Benefits!) - Many types of CP, they can go outside the bounds of the Resolution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Alternative

A

Philosophy or non-policy action that the Neg team proposes, alternative to the SQ that aligns with a critical argument (solves for harms of DA)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Disadvantage

A

Off-Case argument that shows negative consequences if Plan passes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Topicality

A

Off-Case argument that shows how Aff plan does not fit with bounds/topicality of resolution (doesn’t discuss the topic of the resolution)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Theory

A

On or Off-Case argument saying the other team did something harmful for the debate, so they should lose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Kritik

A

Off-Case philosophical argument saying that the assumptions of the Aff plan / the Resolution is harmful. Pre-fiat alternative (args must be resolved before discussing what the plan does) is better

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Stock Issues

A

Args to determine if Action/Advocacy meets burden of proof. Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Significance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Burden of Proof

A

Proof that the action needs to happen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Solvency

A

Args that show the advocacy solves issues it claims to solve (Ex: How Plan solves Resolution)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Harms

A

Negative consequences of sticking with SQ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Status Quo / Inherency

A

Current state of events related to topic. Legislation, general attitude, etc. Things that might effect actions debated on.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Topicality

A

Args that determine if the action is within the bounds of the topic (within what the resolution has us discuss). Plans are assumed to be topical unless Neg proves otherwise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Significance

A

Level of worth of the topic/issue being debated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Parametricize

A

Aff narrows down topic [area] to make the debate managable

17
Q

Empirical Data

A

Proven through examples

18
Q

Fiat

A

Assumption that Plan/CP will be implemented if judge votes for that team. Focuses debate on if plan should happen rather than if it would happen

19
Q

Post-Fiat

A

Args that come from implementation of the plan (Ads and Disads)

20
Q

Pre-Fiat

A

Args that have to be resolved before implementation of plan can be considered (Topicality, Theory, Kritiks)

21
Q

Conditional Advocacy

A

Neg can kick out of advocacy at any time
(Aff responds with Condo Bad)

22
Q

Unconditional Advocacy

A

Neg cannot kick out of Advocacy
(Aff responds with offense against Advocacy)

23
Q

Dispositional Advocacy

A

Neg can kick out of Advocacy unless certain conditions occur (“If aff turns our argument or run theory”)
(Aff responds with Dispo Bad, which is the same as Condo Bad)

24
Q

Kick

A

Not going for an argument in the debate (must provide reason why it shouldn’t be weighed)

25
Q

Prima Facia (at face)

A

Plan text, Inherency, and Solvency introduced by PMC/LOC are binding, and should not be changed. Evaluated “on face”

26
Q

Framework

A

Preferred criteria or lens used to evaluate the round. Established structure of round and how judge should decide winner (Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability)

27
Q

Role of the Ballot

A

How judge should vote in the round, and why they should vote that way. Ballot almost always decides who the winner is, but it can include creating an underlying message through the ballot

28
Q

Mutual Exclusivity

A

Reasons we can’t pass plan and negative advocacies at the same time. Passing one prohibits the other

29
Q

Permutation

A

Aff argument that combines advocacies of Aff and Neg. Challenges Mutual Exclusivity, showing that Neg Advocacies are not Mutually Exclusive

30
Q

Value

A

Lens to evaluate / compare two competing ideologies/objects (Aff vs. Neg) - Identifies what quality we are debating and how it makes one thing better than another

31
Q

Value-Critereon

A

Metric to determine whether value has been met and to what degree

NPDA (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions