Judgey
This question determines how judges approach assessing a debate
Who did the better job of debating?
What is the purpose of a topicality argument in debate?
To check whether the affirmative plan fits within the resolution and ensure everyone debates the same topic.
What is the purpose of a counterplan in debate?
To offer the negative team’s alternative solution that solves the same problem as the affirmative but in a better or less harmful way.
What is an impact in debate?
The effect or consequence of an argument—why something matters or what happens as a result of the plan or policy.
What are the main purposes of cross-examination?
Clarifying issues, gathering information, achieving a strategic advantage
What does “doing the better job of debating” mean?
Arguing more effectively through clarity, evidence, organization, and persuasiveness.
Why does topicality exist as a “voting issue”?
if the affirmative plan is not topical, the judge cannot vote for it; it’s outside their jurisdiction, like a courtroom.
What is fiat, and why is it important to counterplans?
Fiat assumes that the plan or counterplan can be perfectly enacted, allowing the debate to focus on comparing their effects rather than political feasibility.
What are the three main parts of impact calculus?
Magnitude, Timeframe, & Probability
Why should you avoid asking open-ended questions like “Can you repeat your first argument?”
It wastes time, helps your opponent re-explain their case, and shows that you weren’t listening carefully.
Why isn’t a debate judged on whether the topic itself is true or false?
Because debates are judged on skill and reasoning, not personal beliefs or opinions about the topic.
What are the four basic parts of a topicality argument?
Interpretation, Violation, Standards, and Voting Issues.
What does it mean when the affirmative says the counterplan has a “solvency deficit”?
The counterplan fails to solve all the harms or advantages that the affirmative plan addresses.
An alien invasion—catastrophic if it happened, but extremely unlikely. How would the impact calculus evaluate this impact?
High Magnitude, Low Probability, Timeframe Unknown
What does it mean to “commit your opponent to a position”?
To make them clearly state or agree to one side of an issue so you can later show contradictions or weaknesses.
Why do debaters sometimes have to argue positions they don’t personally agree with?
To strengthen critical thinking and learn to see issues from multiple perspectives.
What does the limits standard argue?
Definitions should reasonably narrow the topic so that the negative can prepare; overly broad interpretations create infinite possible cases making negative prep very difficult
The negative offers a counterplan that claims to fix the same harms as the plan but provides no evidence or explanation of how it solves those harms.
What key part of the counterplan is missing?
Solvency
Water pollution and lack of clean water resources affects people everywhere. How would an impact calculus evaluate this?
Low Magnitude, High Probability, Immediate Timeframe
What strategy is being used when a questioner gently leads their opponent toward a damaging admission without revealing their goal?
The Pit of Doom technique.
The affirmative refuted all the negative’s arguments, and the negative only refuted half of the affirmative’s. Who won the debate?
The affirmative
What is the “We Meet” response, and how does the affirmative use it?
The affirmative argues that their plan actually satisfies the negative’s definition, showing no real violation.
The negative proposes: “Instead of giving laptops to students, the federal government should give tablets. Federal government tablets would prevent schools from spending resources that take away from other things like science labs, sports, or clubs. What key element is missing from this counterplan argument?
Mutual Exclusivity. The neg doesn’t explain why both can’t happen
Explain Deontology as a framework for weighing impacts.
Deontology focuses on moral duty and ethical principles—whether an action is right or wrong regardless of its outcomes.
Why should questions be short, clear, and goal-oriented?
Complicated or multi-part questions confuse both the opponent and the judge and waste valuable cross-ex time.