RESOLUTION BREAKDOWN 101
This is the affirmative's main burden when a resolution uses the word "ought"—proving that an action is morally justified.
Burden of proof
This is what happens when a debater extends an argument without explaining why it still matters to the decision.
Poor impact calculus.
You're winning the impact debate 3-1 but losing on framework. What's your strategic priority in the final rebuttal?
ANSWER: Collapse to your strongest impact and explain why it wins even under opponent's framework
What is a card? What does it include?
Piece of evidence cut from a qualified source with author, author qualifications, publication and date published.
This ethical theory says that the right action is whatever produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Utilitarianism
When analyzing a resolution, this term refers to the baseline situation against which the affirmative's advocacy is compared.
Status quo (Squo)
A debater commits this error when they read evidence but never explain how it actually proves their claim.
Card without warrant (or unexplained evidence)
You opponent drops one of your affirmative impacts in the NC, but the judge's paradigm says "I only vote on extinction-level harms." Your impact is significant but not extinction. What's your move?
Impact turn the negative's position OR reframe your impact as having extinction-level consequences
What does it mean to "kick out of" an argument?
To strategically stop defending an argument and conceding it to get out of offense/defense.
This framework prioritizes individual rights and freedoms as the foundation for all ethical decision-making.
Rights-based framework
A resolution that says "Governments ought to..." places the primary burden of action on this entity.
Government
This mistake occurs when a debater spends 3 minutes on an argument they're losing instead of conceding it and moving on.
Wasting time (or poor time allocation)
You win the framework debate, but your opponent extends a better impact. Can you still win the round?
ANSWER: Yes, if your framework explains why their impact doesn't matter or is outweighed
This argument claims that debate procedures themselves are unfair or should be rejected.
Theory.
This approach to ethics says that certain duties or principles are always morally binding, regardless of consequences.
Deontological ethics
When a resolution is intentionally vague or ambiguous, debaters can use this strategy to argue about what the resolution actually means.
Topicality (T) argument
When a debater makes a link turn and impact turn in the same speech. That's called this error.
Double turn.
A judge's paradigm says "I vote on dropped arguments." Does this mean you win automatically if opponent doesn't answer something?
ANSWER: No, they still need to be extended consistently and clearly through the debate
What does it mean to extend an argument?
To carry a previously made point into a later speech by re-stating its claim, validating its logic, and explaining why it matters.
A judge who votes based on "virtue" and asks "what would a virtuous person do?" is voting from this ethical framework.
Virtue ethics
This is the term for when an affirmative interpretation of a resolution is so broad that it makes the negative ground nearly impossible to argue.
Aff abuse
Debaters often say this incorrectly because they think their opponent failed to answer their argument.
They cold-conceded/dropped etc...
This is the most important skill for a debater trying to break at nationals:
ANSWER: Judge adaptation (or reading judges and adjusting strategy in real-time)
This is the number of minutes in an LD debate round (excluding prep time).
32
This framework argues that we should prioritize the interests of the worst-off members of society.
Rawlsian justice