Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, because the Affirmative usually runs a case and has to demonstrate stock issue burdens have been cleared, running a values-versus-virtue debate on the Negative to shift the debate's qualitative format and tone to Lincoln-Douglas steals ground from policy debate.
One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues. The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost ...
In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time", during a debate round. NSDA rules call for five minutes of total prep time that can be used, although in practice high school debate tournaments often give eight minutes of prep time. College debates typically have 10 minutes of ...
In values debate, a "Significance" is a judgment about any crucial aspect of the team's debate outline, and Topicality is secondary to the Stock Issues. Significance goes toward Solvency and is weighed against Inherency, not Harms, that there is unknown danger in change (for example, from deterrence to deproliferation).
Policy debate, different from debating policy plans, is a "pure" values debate about which resolutions are best or better than the given resolution's stated policy goals. The bright-line debate between some of the adversarial groups' modern classical issues is narrow and difficult to debate for the uninitiated debate club.
Trump has re-begun his unique style of debate preparation involving consultations with advisers and friends, including a prominent former debate opponent of Harris, ex-U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
The former Harris aide said her preparation process for big moments like a debate involve her diving into the policy, reviewing briefing materials, and being surrounded a team of people to ...
In policy debate, a disadvantage (here abbreviated as DA) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. [1] A disadvantage is also used in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. [2]