Glossary of Terms

The team that argues in favour of the resolution

The propositions, introduced in the constructive speeches, through which debaters construct their cases

A commonly used abbreviation for ‘Be it resolved that . . .’, a standard phrase which proceeds some debate resolutions

The main point a team is proving. Both the negative and the affirmative have a case line statement, and that statement must agree with the side of the resolution they are on. Also known as a case thesis.

all of the elements that comprise a team’s strategic approach to a resolution

A way of remembering the components of a case line: C - the case statement A - the arguments S - the strategy E - the process of exposition (clash and case analysis)

a speech in a debate when debaters present new contentions to build their cases

the fundamental point-counterpoint progression of a debate; two teams continually attempt to undermine each other’s individual points by presenting more convincing arguments for their own side. Clash can be a direct attack on one point through another point (see direct clash), an attack on several points by addressing the underlying idea (see global clash) or an attack of the underlying principle of an entire side of a debate (see case line).

A case where the affirmative attempts to prove their plan is superior to the current system but not perfect. The plan must meet the goals the current system is based on.

occurs when the first negative speaker claims that the affirmative definitions are unfair or illogical and then introduces and attempts to substantiate better ones

may limit the terms of the resolution but must be reasonable; are presented in the first affirmative speech to provide a common basis for discussion. Definitions in values debates may contain the idea of “how” the resolution would be implemented or be followed by a brief model.

is a type of attack where one argument is specifically refuted using another

is a statistic, quotation or case study (example) to support an argument you are making. Be sure you understand not only what the evidence says, but the reason for saying it and the context. Remember that all arguments must be substantiated with either evidence or logic.

is a type of refutation where several points in an opponent's case are attacked through one point that strikes at assumptions

a case where the affirmative looks at the stated goals of the current system (they must be formal written goals found in policy or legislation) and proves the current system does not meet those goals (replacing the need for change. The plan introduced by the affirmative meets the goals).

a method of proving an argument to be true. Logic uses clear, defensible statements that work together to create a point. The statements cannot rest on other points that are unproven (fallacy) or on themselves (circular argument). Remember that all arguments must be substantiated with either evidence or logic. See SEDA's resources on logic on page 58 for more detailed information.

A way of remembering the parts of an argument: Label, Explanation, Evidence, Tie-back

the team that argues against the resolution

brief course of action proposed after the definitions by the Proposition to show how the resolution could be implemented or has been implemented elsewhere; used in Values debates

the affirmative identifies 3 reasons to change (needs) and suggests a plan to meet that need

In Policy debates, a detailed course of action proposed to implement the resolution, and outlined by the first affirmative speaker and explained in detail by the second affirmative speaker. The negative may propose a counter-plan if they agree there is a problem but think they have a better solution

The affirmative or negative concluding speech that is used for summary and refutation only and not for the development of new contentions

a debate about what should be done, why and how. A policy debate requires an affirmative to introduce a plan to solve a problem. The plan must be introduced in the first Affirmative and fully explained by the second affirmative. The negative clashes with both arguments and the plan

an acronym for remembering types of arguments you can use in a debate. They include: S - social P - political L - legal E - economic E - environmental E - education M - moral

the subject to be resolved through debate

The process of proving that the other teams arguments are incorrect or illogical

Final speeches similar to a rebuttal speech, but will have a slower tempo and shift in tone from the rest. These speeches examine the big picture and point out the crux of the debate.

a Latin term that refers to the present established system

The main point a team is proving. Both the negative and the affirmative have a case line statement, and that statement must agree with the side of the resolution they are on. Also known as a case line statement.

method of asking questions to break down an idea to find the ultimate, defendable truth of a statement. Ask why (or other questions) to explain each step of an argument

a genre of debate based on asking and answering the big question of “why” we should take an action and not about “how to implement” a change – both sides may have equally valid but conflicting beliefs but defend why they are “more right”. Most SEDA resolutions are now Values ones.

This House would / believes / should, etc… a standard phrase which proceeds some debate resolutions and generally interpreted to mean Canada, or parts of the world (western countries, developing nations, etc), depending on the subject of the rest of the resolution