Here is a list of the important terms – the underlined and bolded jargon words – that you will need! Use “ctrl + f” and search the word you are wondering to navigate. Otherwise, refer back to this glossary once in a while after reading through each unit.
Why Debate?
Case: these are the first few speeches made in the debate, where one reads and introduces their main pieces of evidence, which they will keep referring back to throughout the entirety of the debate. Also known as constructive speeches, cases are in contrast to rebuttals (speeches unprepared beforehand and made right there in the middle of the round).
Intro to Debate
Topic / resolution: a broad phrase or statement, which starts with “Resolved:”, that is up for debate. Two sides (Aff/Neg) are each trying to win that either the resolution is valid or not, backing their claims with evidence.
Burden: a criteria or requirement that a debater should fulfill to ensure engaging debate. There are side-specific burdens (e.g. Aff should define the resolution so that it is engageable for the Neg) and burdens that debaters in general should meet when coming into the round (e.g. burden of clash). Just remember to prove your side of the topic and allow for argument interaction with your opponent.
Affirmative (Aff): the debater who is in support of the resolution. Also known as the “Affirmative side” and “Affirmative position”. The Aff has the advantage of speaking first and getting the last speech, able to have a perceptual advantage in the judge’s mind.
Negative (Neg): the debater who is against the resolution. Also known as the “Negative side” and “Negative position”. The Neg has the advantage of only having 2 speeches, thus large amounts of time are concentrated together to allow for easier pushes against the short Aff speeches.
Clash: the interaction between arguments and counterarguments that debaters bring up. Clash is central to debate, as it represents points of conflict and thus more engagement debating the topic. The more disagreement in the debate, the more clash, which is good. Clash can be thought of as two warships passing in the night, a common analogy: if debaters are aboard opposing ships, they should be launching attacks on each other (clashing, poking holes in the other’s case / train of logic), not passing each other without a single exchange.
Events: different types of competition in speech and debate, each with their own unique formats. They can be individual or team-based, require extensive or little research, and have different speaking times. Debate events include Lincoln-Douglas (LD), Public Forum (PF), and Congress debate. Speech events include Impromptu, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous speech.
Judge: they are the adults, college students, upperclassmen, etc who decide the winner and loser of the round. They have all the power. Respect them at all costs, as your life depends on it. Of course, don’t be too nervous, as many judges are really chill people. In a debate round, it’s just you, your opponent, and your judge(s) (usually one). You’re not trying to convince your opponent to give up or vote for you, you’re trying to appeal to the judge.
Round: in a debate tournament, there are usually 5 to 7 rounds that everyone is guaranteed to participate in, before elimination rounds. One round is about 45 minutes to 1 hour in duration. Each round, you will be paired with a different opponent than the previous, and switch sides (Aff/Neg) throughout the tournament.
Speeches (in debate): one speech is a part of a round. In one round, there are 5 speeches total (3 for Aff, 2 for Neg): 1AR, 1NC (with 1NR/rebuttal part, but referred to as one), 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR. This includes constructive speeches and rebuttals.
Speech (event): as in “speech and debate”. Speech is a separate category from debate, with a stronger emphasis on rhetoric, performance, and emotional expression. The most obvious difference is that speech contestants are compared indirectly, while debaters directly clash with each other and actively try to take down the other’s arguments. Events within speech include extemporaneous, original oratory, impromptu, duo interpretation, prose, etc. For a full list of speech and debate events, visit the NSDA website (https://www.speechanddebate.org/competition-events/).
Speech Order
Contentions: one point or justification to Affirm/Negate. You must describe examples and instances which support the validity of the resolution, using studies, predictions, and trends. A contention follows a “claim -> warrant -> impact” format, which builds a story that connects Affirming/Negating the resolution to a certain impact, in order to persuade the judge to vote for you.
Rebuttal: a speech which briefly rebuilds your case (by addressing your opponent’s attacks), while also attacking your opponent’s case. Whereas a constructive speech is written entirely before the round starts, what you will say in a rebuttal is adjusted to what your opponents have just presented within the round. Therefore, it is more difficult with the time limits and pressure.
Extending: rebuilding and reinforcing the arguments you presented in your constructive speech. This usually involves summarizing your case or a specific contention in order for the judge to consider it in their evaluation. For example, if an Aff debater only read the contention in their 1AC, and didn’t bring it up in their 1AR, they have effectively dropped / conceded / kicked it, and it would no longer factor into the round decision.
Dropping: a.k.a. “conceding“. Failure to respond to a definition, framework, or contention, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Usually, if you drop something that your opponent said, and they extend it, it is assumed true (seeing no arguments against it). This could be good for the Neg when saving time on re-reading definitions, but bad if an entire contention is left unaddressed (likely helping the opponent win).
Voters: a short summary at the end of the 2NR or 2AR to help guide the judge in their round decision. This usually comes in the form of listing two or three very important issues of the round, which would support the judge’s decision to give you a win. This includes how the links to your extinction impact hold up stronger than your opponent’s, your opponent dropping your round-winning contention, etc.
Weighing: the act of comparing between you and your opponent’s cases. Your objective is to show that your internal link, impact, etc is better than your opponent’s, therefore the use of weighing achieves this.
Formatting Evidence
Evidence: credible information from news articles, academic papers, and studies written by qualified authors. LD debaters use these to back up their claims.
Card: evidence which is formatted correctly. This is done by cutting the card (highlighting then citing the evidence you want to read).
Cutting: as in “cutting a card“. The act of copying a paragraph of evidence from an article or book, then underlining, bolding, highlighting, and citing what you want to read in the debate round.
Tagline: a brief summarization of what the evidence of a card says, usually in 1-2 sentences. The tagline is read first, then followed by the author + year and the actual card evidence.
Card clipping: this is a form of cheating in which a debater skips reading portions of a card that is highlighted, or doesn’t notify the judge and opponent about ending the card early. The best solution to this is to time yourself before rounds and edit your case so that you don’t need to skip. The solution in-round is to say “cut the card there” when you decide you are finished, and send an edited document after the speech for your judge and opponent.
Evidence ethics: this refers to whether you present your evidence correctly or not, or not at all (although in some states of the U.S., these norms aren’t enforced, e.g. Washington state – understand where you are competing). Violations of evidence ethics can range anywhere from not adding author qualifications to not sharing your case (disclosing). Evidence ethics are key to checking the credibility of authors that debaters use for cards, and determine whether debaters misrepresented their views (e.g. only citing the objections in the article to the author’s beliefs, when the author meant to say the exact opposite).
Building a Case
Framework: this is the perspective in which you want the judge to view/evaluate the round. The framework consists of a value and value criterion.
Value: one word that describes the central goal you want to achieve. E.g. common and recommended values of “justice” or “morality”. Others include “dignity”, “autonomy”, “equality”, etc.
Value criterion: also sometimes nicknamed “criterion”. It further clarifies a general method or action you will do in order to achieve the value you presented. In a sense, the criterion measures whether you have achieved your value or not. E.g. a util debater may say that “maximizing well-being is necessary in order to achieve justice”. Because the value criterion is the main part of framework that is up for contestation, debaters may refer to it as “framework”, e.g. “a utilitarian framework”. When there is a clash of criterions, it is called a “framework debate“.
Framework debate: a debate about which debater’s value criterion is the best. This occurs when the Neg side presents a different value criterion than the Aff, thus representing a point of clash where the two sides disagree.
Utilitarianism: also known as “util” for short, this value criterion says that justice is achieved by creating the greatest possible pleasure for the greatest amount of people. Contentions that work under this framework focus on making impacts as widespread and big as possible (nuke war, climate change extinction, etc).
Claim: a title or sentence to introduce the contention.
Warrant: a long chain of logic, coherently connecting Affirming/Negating the resolution to an impact.
Impact: the benefit / harm / end goal of a contention. It helps determine why a contention matters and its importance under the framework. Impacts are usually used for frameworks which care about consequences created as a result of policy actions, such as utilitarianism.
Internal link: an individual card which contributes to the coherence of the contention’s overall story. Linking to the resolution, each internal link that follows builds atop the previous until the contention ends off with the impact.
Link chain: a sequence of internal links which explain how to get from the resolution to an end impact. A.k.a. warrant.
Contest: to challenge or actively disagree with something your opponent has brought up. E.g. you can contest your opponent’s definitions and framework if you don’t agree with them or they are unfair.
Conceding: a.k.a. “dropping“. Failure to respond to a definition, framework, or contention, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Usually, if you concede/drop something that your opponent said, and they extend it, it is assumed true (seeing no arguments against it). This could be good for the Neg when saving time on re-reading definitions, but bad if an entire contention is left unaddressed (likely helping the opponent win).
Rebuttals
Analytics: regular sentences and everyday speaking. Rebuttal speeches are made up of mostly these, as opposed to constructive cases (reading only cards). Basically it refers to analyzing the debate or doing analysis (hence the term “analytics”), rather than reading the evidence.
Offense / offensive: reasons why you should win. E.g. your own contentions, turns (responses) – link turn, impact turn.
Defense / defensive: reasons why your opponent shouldn’t win. E.g. takeouts (responses) – link defense, impact mitigation, non-uniqueness claim.
Takeouts: defensive responses to your opponent’s case.
Delink / no link: a defensive response, claiming that a link in your opponent’s contention is false, hence putting a hole in the link chain story of the contention.
Impact mitigation / impact defense / no impact: a defensive response category that says either your opponent’s impact doesn’t happen, isn’t that bad, or is going to happen regardless of whether you vote for them or not. In summary, a response that makes their impact irrelevant.
Non-uniqueness: the claim that what your opponent prevents (e.g. impact, like economic collapse) is not special to their case. E.g. economic collapse will happen a few years later, regardless of whether you vote for them or not.
Even-if statement: a.k.a. “at their best” statement. This is a way of layering arguments together to form a stronger defense or offense to your opponent’s arguments. E.g. “even if you manage to prove my delink false, your impact in the end doesn’t matter.”
Turns: offensive responses to your opponent’s case.
Link turn: an offensive response which states that the opposite of your opponent’s link is true. Therefore, they cause their own impact, or you solve for their impact better.
Impact turn: an offensive response. An impact turn would say that the impact your opponent is trying to prevent is, in fact, a good thing.
Double turns: this is a major contradiction in your response, when you read both a link turn and impact turn against one of your opponent’s contentions.
Time trade-off: to sacrifice a contention, response, or other argument in order to gain strategic value through saving time or making your opponent waste their speech time.
Weighing: (specifically referring to impacts, as in “impact weighing” / “impact calculus“) to debate and compare who’s impact matters more (usually under a utilitarian framework).
Outweigh: to win that your impact matters more than your opponent’s, hence why you should win the round.
Kicking: this usually refers to a more purposeful / strategic dropping of part(s) of your case. Kicking in a rebuttal speech is strategic for focusing on a single contention, hence putting high-quality explanation and rebuilding into a shorter amount of time.
Line by line (LBL): responding to your opponent’s arguments (contentions or responses) in the order that they were presented. Basically, LBL is a term that puts all responses (& responses to responses) together in order. Answering every line or argument in the order they were presented is important for the judge to follow along and know what you addressed or dropped. Grouping arguments and answering them with one general response is okay, but just indicate which specific arguments you are addressing with each group.
Flowing
Flowing: notetaking in debate. Helps a debater keep track of the contentions and responses brought up and developed throughout the round.
Preflowing: taking notes on your own case before a debate round starts. This is important so that you can easily recall your points throughout the round and also draw arrows on your paper to show which parts of your case your opponent responded to.
Blocks: pre-prepared parts of your rebuttal, commonly in the form of cards that address specific responses or contentions. Useful at times when you want to address your opponent’s points with specific evidence rather than purely relying on logic and analytics.
Cross-Examination
Line of questioning: a sequence of short and specific questions, aimed at taking apart aspects of your opponent’s case. For example, lines of questioning could be used to delink or link-turn a contention, as well as attempt to prove a framework or value criterion false.
Concessions (part of conceding): a term mostly used to refer to conceding during cross-examination – a debater admitting that something is true after initially denying it. This commonly comes in the form of revealing important information about a case that could be utilized by their opponent to undermine their position. A large purpose of cross-examination is to gain concessions from your opponent.
Perceptual dominance: how a debater looks in the eyes of their judge(s), commonly made or broken during cross-examination. This comes in the form of seeming confident, responding with rapid responses, using less crutch/filler words (“um”, “ah”, “like”, etc), and employing meaningful body/hand gestures to aid in persuasive speaking.
Judge Adaptation
Judge adaptation: the process of presenting, debating, and making types of argumentation that appeal to your judge’s preferences. This can take the form of speaking with passion and emphasis for judges who like watching good presentations, or keeping track of every argument on the flow to get a flow/progressive judge’s win.
Paradigm: a paragraph written by a judge describing their overall philosophy on debate and how they judge. Paradigms oftentimes include specific information that can help guide debaters on what strategies they want to pursue during the round, in order to win the judge’s vote.
Progressive arguments: arguments borrowed or taken from another style of debate – called “Policy debate” – in contrast to traditional LD debate. Some well-known types of progressive arguments include “kritiks”, “counterplans”, and “theory arguments”. These arguments are typically are paired with an extremely fast pace of speaking (also taken from Policy debate). Progressive-style debating has caused much controversy amongst the LD debate community, but is gradually growing in prevalence as more debaters use it and more judges become willing to evaluate it.
Reason for decision (RFD): a judge’s end of round feedback and explanation for why they voted for a specific debater. It is of note that judges don’t always disclose the results of the round immediately. Regardless, when the round ends, it is a good opportunity for debaters to ask questions about strategy and specifics from the round.
Panel: a group of judges (commonly an odd number – specifically 3). Each judge casts an individual vote for either debater, and the winner is decided based on which debater has the most votes.
Disclosure
The Wiki: a.k.a. “OpenCaselist”. A platform where debaters disclose and share details (including cases used) in their past rounds. Most often used at national circuit tournaments.
National circuit: a collection of tournaments that attract debaters from across the nation to compete in. Usually more intense and competitive than local circuit tournaments, due to holding TOC bids (chances to attend a prestigious nation-wide tournament called the “TOC” or “Tournament of Champions“). Examples of national circuit tournaments: Harvard, Glenbrooks, Stanford, and Florida Blue Key.
Local circuit: a collection of tournaments within one’s local area or state. Criteria varies from state to state, but commonly if you do well at these tournaments, you earn chances to go to your state’s championship tournament. Local circuit tournaments often don’t require disclosure, based on the norms in your area.
Disclosure: sharing debate evidence, most often through the Wiki or by directly sending between debaters.
LD Debate Prep 