1154:
high school level. However, the method accepted by most national organizations such as the
National Forensic League, Tournament of Champions, National Catholic Forensic League, Cross-Examination Debate Association, and National Debate Tournament, use values ranging from 1 to 30. In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where a perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance. Most tournaments accept half-point gradations, for example 28.5s, or even by tenths. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses, yet often correlate with a team's win/loss rate. In other words, the judge usually awards the winning team cumulatively higher speaker points than the losing team. If the judge does not, the decision is considered a "low-point win". Low-point wins simply mean that the team with better argumentation did not speak as well as their competitors, which is rare, because judges will vote for teams that speak better overall and award higher speaker points to teams who deliver a better debate. The difference can be stated as so, "the low-point winning team are better debaters, and the high-point losing team provided a better debate round".
911:: The negative can present a counter solution to the affirmative case's problem which does not have to affirm the resolution (The negative does not have to be topical in making a counterplan). This is generally accompanied by on-case arguments that the affirmative's plan does not solve, as well as disadvantages that link to the affirmative case but not the counterplan. Counterplans narrow down the on-case arguments to: advantages the counterplan can not borrow, the inherency, and the solvency. Upon the negative running a counterplan, most debates boil down to the solvency of the affirmative case, and the disadvantages. Counterplans must be competitive with the plan. That means that the counterplan must either be mutually exclusive with the affirmative (for example, one cannot both increase oil production (a hypothetical plan) and decrease oil production (a hypothetical counterplan) or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan (the negative must win that the inclusion of the plan would cause some form of harm that the counterplan alone would avoid). If a counterplan is dropped after the affirmative perms as advocacy, the affirmative gets to keep all of the additional solvency.
899:: The Negative will attempt to argue that the Affirmative team does not fall under the rubric of the resolution and should be rejected immediately regardless of the merits or advantages of the plan. This is a type of "meta-debate" argument, as both sides then spend time defining various words or phrases in the resolution, laying down standards for why their definition(s) or interpretation(s) is superior. Most yearly topics have at least one or two commonly run Affirmative cases that are only arguably topical, so Topicality is often justified as a check or deterrent on and against such plans, which usually have quite strategic components. If run correctly, they are the strongest arguments against case only in unique circumstances. When topicality is run when the aff is clearly topical, which is common, it is usually used as a time waster for the aff.
1354:, which requires formal qualification in the form of two or more bids to the tournament. Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent. Debater partnerships with 2 bids are guaranteed a spot at the TOC, whereas debater teams with 1 bid (At-large teams) may be admitted if they consistently advance far in the elimination rounds or come close to winning a bid several other times.
486:
because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut (or refute) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. The
Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.
905:: The negative can claim that there are disadvantages, or adverse effects of the plan, which outweigh any advantages claimed. In order to outweigh any positive effects of the affirmative case, impacts must be arguably "larger" than those of the opposing team. The negative must say what is good now, and how the affirmative's plan causes the impact of their disadvantage. A disadvantage is composed of a uniqueness (a description of the status quo in terms of the impacts of their disadvantage), a link (how the affirmative's plan activates the impact), and an impact (the adverse effect).
73:
728:(Inherency). They must persuade that their plan is an example of the resolution (Topicality, Typicality), and they must prove that the plan is a good idea (Solvency). The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo (Harms). Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo (commonly referred to as the squo), the negative team always has presumption for winning the round. The negative is automatically the winner unless the affirmative can prove they are better than the status quo.
583:, for a total of eight speeches each debate round. Each speaker was cross-examined by their opponent for a period following his or her constructive speech. Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped. Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards.
719:
unfair and therefore warrant a loss or other intervention by the judge. They are also brought up to change how an argument is weighted by the judge to either assist themselves or detract from the opponents. Theory debates in-round are not rare, but whole rounds are almost never about theory itself. Theory is argued as part of the decision of the round with the hope of advancing debate the activity and the principles of rhetoric, argumentation, policymaking, and so on that the debaters are engaged in the substantive matter of the topic.
607:
understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. In contrast, rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences.
917:: The negative can claim that the affirmative is guilty of a certain mindset or assumption that should be grounds for rejection or a different mutually exclusive alternative to the Affirmative's plan. Kritiks are sometimes a reason to reject the entire affirmative advocacy without evaluating its policy; other times, kritiks can be evaluated within the same strictures as the affirmative case as to who is hypocritical or irrelevant or prejudiced, etc. Examples of some areas of literature for kritiks include
1375:
is organized by a five-member board, including
Executive Grant Zhang, President Kelly Mu, Assistant Jared Shirts, Outreach Ambassador Ann Schulte, and Coach Joseph Smith. The RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills.
419:
481:. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a
1666:
1277:
1072:
957:
795:
658:
135:
641:, case, etc.). There are multiple methods of flowing, but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech. The first constructive speech is flowed from the top of the sheet down in the first column, and the next constructive speech is flowed in the right column next to the first one. Each speech is flowed in separate columns, alternating Affirmative and Negative. Rebuttals are flowed the same.
32:
533:'s debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in the mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854. Many debating societies that were founded at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century are still active today, though they have generally shifted their focus to intercollegiate competitive debate. In addition to Wake Forest, the debate society at
1027:(because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been replaced by digital storage). Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the argument or evidence summary, the evidence that supports the argument, and the citation. The argument part, sometimes called the
237:
1162:
and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges. The number of speaker awards given out varies based on the number of debaters competing at any given tournament. For instance, a small local tournament might only award trophies or plaques to the top three debaters, whereas a widely attended "national circuit" tournament might give out awards to the top ten or fifteen speakers.
1049:. It is generally accepted whichever team is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced.
1472:(ADA) all host national tournaments. The NDT committee issues a ranking report of the top 16 teams in the country ("first round bids") for automatic advancement to the NDT in early February. The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February.
1374:
The Rural Debate
Initiative ("RuDI") expands access to debate to secondary school students residing in rural America. RuDI partners with top college programs to provide weekly coaching sessions, internal debate tournaments and summer debate camps to rural students in a virtual format at no cost. RuDI
1161:
At a majority of tournaments, debaters also receive "speaker awards", which are awarded to the debaters who received the greatest number of speaker points. Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair
1132:
A judge is an individual responsible for deciding the winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers. Judges merit a good debate round and, ideally, avoid inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality, however, total impartiality is impossible
602:
Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In more progressive and larger tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained
1529:
At the high-school level, "topic papers" are also prepared but the voting procedure is different. Those papers are then presented to a topic selection committee which rewords each topic and eventually narrows down the number of topics to five topics. Then the five resolutions are put to a two-tiered
1057:
nationals, and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for the purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their
1052:
After a round, judges sometimes "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably
1035:
contains all relevant reference citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's
1525:
At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write "topic papers" discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Each school then gets one vote on the topic. The single topic area voted on then has a number of proposed topic wordings, one is chosen, and it is
1517:
negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. Most resolutions from the 1920s to 2005 have begun "Resolved: that The United States federal government should" although some variations from that template have been used both before the NDT-CEDA merger and with the 2006–2007 college
1174:
Not every judge fits perfectly into one paradigm or another. A judge may say that they are "tabula rasa" or tab for short, or willing to listen to anything, but draw the line at arguments they consider to be offensive (such as arguments in favor of racism). Or, a judge might be a "policymaker", but
1170:
Most debate judges (who were usually debaters in high school and/or college) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Depending on what mindset, or paradigm, the judge uses, the debate can be drastically different. Because there is no one view of debate agreed
937:
philology about the ambiguity of the language used (diction) and were championed by debaters Shane
Stafford and Bill Shanahan. A kritik is built with a link (how the affirmative activates the impacts), an impact (the impact of a kritik is slightly different to regular impacts. They are more similar
855:
Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages, which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that the affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages
718:
There are many accepted standards in policy debate, and there are several dominant speech argument styles. Sometimes debaters will debate about how policy debate should work. Those arguments are known as "theory" arguments, and they are most often brought up when one team believes the other team is
1255:
The judge gives the closure of the round. Judges who know stasis theory do not overexplain what it is and tend to be pedagogical, coaching debaters after the round to help improve debaters' appreciation of debate and oratory, by speaking on arguments and argumentation, strategy and tactics, rather
1153:
The judge is charged not only with selecting a winner, but also must allot points to each debater. "Speaker points" are numeric merit scores that the judge awards the debaters on their speaking skills. Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at the
1044:
Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech. If cards are not shared before the speech, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine evidence even while a speech is still going
941:
Theory: Sometimes the subject matter of the affirmative's case will create uneven
Grounds at the beginning. In these cases, the negative can object to the procedure or content of the affirmative case. These objections are part of a Grounds theory debate in that they try to delineate what has been
485:
as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the
Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech,
1157:
In some smaller jurisdictions, the judge ranks the speakers 1‑4 instead of awarding them speaker points. Either speaker-point calculation may be used to break ties among teams with like records. Some areas also use speaker rankings in addition to speaker points in order to differentiate between
1140:
or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important part of the activity of a debate club. Debaters in these circuits should be able to adapt their presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, as well as maintaining high standards of debate for judges who have
1365:
give students in urban school districts an opportunity to participate in policy debate. There are currently urban debate leagues in 24 of the largest cities in the United States. In total, more than 500 high schools participate in the league and more than 40,000 students have competed in urban
727:
When the
Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate (Justification) a significant change (Significance or Impact) to the status quo and that their plan should be adopted and hence, by default, the resolution that in general will allow for such a plan
1040:
is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate
606:
Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be
1189:, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. These judges are more likely to dislike newer arguments such as critics and some theoretical points.
1195:
At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of
746:. 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 (Significance). They are generally known as follows:
1486:
While once attended by only highly competitive policy debaters, many high school students now attend debate institutes, which are typically held at colleges in the summer. Most institutes range from about two to seven weeks, with four weeks being the most common.
1058:
own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner, and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published later.
938:
to harms and the impacts are saying that the affirmative team prolongs these harms), and the alternative (a way to fix the impacts, often in a very extreme manner. An example would be destroying the entire
American government to fix institutionalized racism).
1217:
Views debate as a game. Judges who use this paradigm tend to be concerned with whether or not each team has a fair chance at winning the debate. They usually view the debate flow as a game board, and look at arguments according to an offense/defense
1045:
on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in
1530:
voting system. State forensic associations, the
National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League all vote on the five topics, narrowing it down to two. Then the two topics are again put to a vote, and one topic is selected.
884:. The acceptance of all-inclusive negation, as opposed piecemeal, allows Negative teams to run full argumentation outlines such as topical counterplans with better Solvency that affirms the resolution but still negates the Affirmative's plan.
2422:
1345:
A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' The championship of the national circuit is usually considered to be the
541:'s Fulton Debating Society, which was founded in 1868, continues to organize an annual "Fulton Prize Debate" between teams of its own students after the intercollegiate debate season has ended. Other universities continue similar traditions.
1634:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its security cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in one or more of the following areas: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity.
1210:
for "blank slate", the judge attempts to come into the round with no predispositions. These judges typically expect debaters to "debate it out", which includes telling the judge what paradigm they should view the round
1643:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase fiscal redistribution in the United States by adopting a federal jobs guarantee, expanding Social Security, and/or providing a basic income.
1141:
themselves been debaters. A common saying is that debate is a game of judges/judge adaptation. This use of lay judges significantly alters delivery and argumentation, as the rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory
1224:
This type of judge is concerned with good presentation and persuasion skills. They tend to vote for teams that are more articulate, and present arguments in the most appealing way. These judges usually disapprove of
759:
of the status quo: Is the plan an Intrinsic change? Also, is the plan necessary? What is the Status Quo? Is the affirmative's plan happening already, and if not, why? Inherency promotes strength of originality in
1490:
Many institutes divide students into work groups, or "labs", based on skill level and experience. Many even offer specialized "advanced" or "scholars" workshops, to which acceptance is highly limited.
1538:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
1400:(now known as the National Speech & Debate Association). For the highest level of competition, the Tournament of Champions is generally considered to be the more prestigious title to hold.
1342:
Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Thousands of tournaments are held each year at high schools and certain colleges throughout the US.
1618:
Resolved: The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform in the United States in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.
1652:
Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly strengthen its protection of domestic intellectual property rights in copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks.
466:
in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as
439:
579:
By the mid-1970s, regular rules for lengths of speeches developed. Each side (Affirmative and Negative) was afforded two opening "constructive" speeches, and two closing
1425:
506:
1036:
qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. Qualifications are only included in trying to increase the weight of your cards against your opponents'. The
1594:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of primary and/or secondary education in the United States.
1231:
In order for the affirmative to win, they convince the judge to support the resolution. Conversely, the negative must convince the judge to negate the resolution.
1610:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.
1388:
There is some dispute over what constitutes the "national championship" in the United States per se, but two tournaments generally compete for the title: The
1586:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China.
529:
Academic debate had its origins in intra-collegiate debating societies, in which students would engage in invitational debates against their classmates.
1256:
than speaking on their personal judgment and analysis or judge's paradigm. But these judges do judge and are not paradigm-based in their ballot voting.
572:
in the late 1890s. Southwestern claims that the first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College (which eventually became
770:
What is the problem in the status quo to justify adopting the plan? Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference?
1570:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.
1554:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
1546:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Mesosphere.
1041:
unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the citation and the body.
2415:
Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "Post-Modern Critiques as Stratagems in the Policy Debate Discourse." National Forensic League. 2005
1145:
are frequently new to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters.
644:
Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary.
1415:
494:
1602:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States.
1562:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.
1493:
These camps often set the tone for the upcoming season and produce much of the evidence used by debaters at the beginning of the year.
2416:
753:
Does the plan acknowledge a problem, a want, a need, of some policy interest implied or alluded to or of interest from the resolution?
2062:
1626:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.
1171:
upon by everyone, many debaters question a judge about their paradigm and/or their feelings on specific arguments before the round.
544:
Intercollegiate debates have been held since at least as early as the 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from
781:
Will the plan solve any problems in the status quo? How much of an impact (positive effect, or Significance) will the plan have?
446:
2081:
490:
2411:
2339:
509:, as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of
2410:
Glass, David. Former President of NDCA. "The Policy Debate Topic Selection Meeting." National Forensic League. 22 June 2006
199:
2441:
1465:
892:
After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include:
514:
171:
2179:
625:, to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, a debater's flow is divided into separate
2393:
2362:
2308:
1713:
1408:
1324:
1119:
1054:
1004:
842:
742:
One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the
705:
297:
279:
218:
178:
116:
94:
59:
1695:
1306:
1101:
986:
824:
687:
87:
2512:
1389:
1347:
1031:, is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The
2022:
1931:
355:
2215:
1936:
1691:
1687:
1302:
1298:
1097:
1093:
982:
978:
820:
816:
683:
679:
334:
261:
185:
156:
152:
45:
518:
1988:
603:
speech. Speed reading or spreading is normal at the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments.
1903:
1889:
1875:
1861:
1833:
1805:
1777:
167:
1519:
1510:
1469:
1133:
which has led to judges adopting a paradigm. Judges are sometimes coaches who help debate teams improve.
877:
766:
upon the status quo: Does the plan warrant change? Does the plan warrant the resolution (Justification)?
561:
517:(CEDA), which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the
2047:
1941:
1727:
1578:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.
1461:
1452:(TFA) tournaments. The other major debate organization is the University Interscholastic League (UIL).
1449:
1266:
896:
881:
638:
510:
408:
350:
327:
2008:
252:
2500:
1676:
1514:
1397:
1287:
1082:
1018:
967:
873:
805:
668:
576:) but that debate could not have occurred prior to 1895, the year Fairmount College began classes.
573:
498:
362:
81:
1951:
1680:
1526:
debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season (standard academic school year).
1291:
1086:
971:
809:
672:
534:
145:
2379:
1918:
In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "
2576:
2106:
1393:
1351:
545:
530:
432:
422:
98:
2581:
565:
553:
2285:
616:
388:
367:
192:
8:
2151:
1362:
569:
478:
20:
2128:
2534:
856:
outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the
597:
51:
2399:
2389:
2368:
2358:
2335:
2314:
2304:
2085:
1847:
1819:
1791:
1763:
1175:
still look at the debate in an offense/defense framework like a games-playing judge.
1046:
934:
552:) beginning in 1897. Additionally, a debate between students from Boston College and
247:
2380:
Leslie Phillips; William S. Hicks; Douglas R. Springer & Maridell Fryar (2001).
930:
857:
2382:
463:
1946:
861:
580:
557:
549:
403:
2296:
1460:
There is no single unified national championship in college debate; though the
538:
489:
High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including the
2570:
2549:
257:
Remove unreferenced sections and original research, restructure article, etc.
2403:
2372:
2318:
1185:
In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the
2350:
2328:
1186:
902:
737:
634:
393:
383:
2258:
2183:
2197:
1481:
1246:
1237:
Judges who prefer kritik debates may look to who most effectively solves
1201:
908:
398:
2495:
2447:
1238:
2539:
1437:
The National Speech and Debate Association National Tournament (NSDA).
2423:
Finding Your Voice: A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate
2420:
Hahn, Allison; Taylor Ward Hahn; and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. (2013).
2026:
1919:
2223:
1665:
1276:
1071:
956:
933:. Kritiks arose in the early 1990s, with the first kritiks based in
794:
777:
advantages: Does the plan deal with the issues presented adequately?
657:
134:
2544:
1432:
1142:
918:
502:
2023:"Debate Society, School of Communication, Northwestern University"
872:
Negation Tactic, also known as Negation Theory, contends that the
1396:, and the National Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the
926:
19:
For the general meaning, not specific to debate competition, see
2464:
1518:
policy debate topic, which limited the affirmative agent to the
2561:
1242:
922:
914:
630:
2484:
2469:
1431:
The National Invitational Tournament of Champions (NITOC) of
1207:
2489:
1421:
The National Debate Coaches' Association Championship (NDCA)
477:) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each
2480:
National Christian Forensics and Communications Association
1426:
National Christian Forensics and Communications Association
507:
National Christian Forensics and Communications Association
1989:"The Basic Structure of Policy Debate – Policy: DebateUS!"
2517:
2301:
Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture
1749:
2479:
2348:
621:
Debaters have a specialized form of note taking, called
2474:
629:
for each different macro-argument in the debate round (
2522:
2237:
2070:. Boston College, Office of the University Historian.
1732:
The times and speech order are generally as follows:
2064:
Debate at Boston College: People, Places, Traditions
1443:
1249:, ocularcentrism, or other perceived oppressiveness.
2426:. International Debate Education Association Press.
1023:Evidence in debates is organized into units called
159:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
2381:
2327:
942:disavailed from fouling Grounds in a debate round.
2568:
784:
2496:National Federation of High School Association
2295:
2470:National Association for Urban Debate Leagues
1648:The 2024-2025 high school resolution will be:
722:
440:
1416:National Association of Urban Debate Leagues
1158:speakers awarded the same number of points.
495:National Association of Urban Debate Leagues
2494:The organization that writes the HS topic:
1694:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1305:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
1100:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
985:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
823:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
686:. Unsourced material may be challenged and
60:Learn how and when to remove these messages
2325:
447:
433:
2025:. Debate.northwestern.edu. Archived from
1850:of Second Negative by Second Affirmative
1714:Learn how and when to remove this message
1630:The 2022-2023 high school resolution was:
1622:The 2021-2022 high school resolution was:
1614:The 2020-2021 high school resolution was:
1606:The 2019-2020 high school resolution was:
1598:The 2018-2019 high school resolution was:
1590:The 2017–2018 high school resolution was:
1582:The 2016–2017 high school resolution was:
1574:The 2015–2016 high school resolution was:
1566:The 2014–2015 high school resolution was:
1558:The 2013–2014 high school resolution was:
1550:The 2012–2013 high school resolution was:
1542:The 2011–2012 high school resolution was:
1534:The 2010-2011 high school resolution was:
1325:Learn how and when to remove this message
1120:Learn how and when to remove this message
1005:Learn how and when to remove this message
843:Learn how and when to remove this message
706:Learn how and when to remove this message
298:Learn how and when to remove this message
280:Learn how and when to remove this message
219:Learn how and when to remove this message
117:Learn how and when to remove this message
2263:National Speech & Debate Association
2149:
1822:of Second Affirmative by First Negative
1766:of First Affirmative by Second Negative
1639:The 2023–2024 high school resolution is:
521:(NFA)) on the collegiate level as well.
80:This article includes a list of general
2152:"25 Tips for Taking a Better Flowsheet"
2060:
1794:of First Negative by First Affirmative
1475:
2569:
2286:Drills to Improve your Debate Speaking
2107:"ABOUT WSU - Wichita State University"
1972:
1404:Other national championships include:
491:National Speech and Debate Association
2061:Donovan, Charles F. (November 1991).
2048:"A Century of Intercollegiate Debate"
1407:The Grand National Tournament of the
586:
2518:Cross Examination Debate Association
2126:
1968:
1966:
1692:adding citations to reliable sources
1659:
1466:Cross Examination Debate Association
1303:adding citations to reliable sources
1270:
1098:adding citations to reliable sources
1065:
983:adding citations to reliable sources
950:
887:
821:adding citations to reliable sources
788:
684:adding citations to reliable sources
651:
556:occurred on May 1, 1895, in Boston.
515:Cross Examination Debate Association
230:
157:adding citations to reliable sources
128:
66:
25:
2490:National Debate Coaches Association
2355:Mastering Competitive Debate 7th Ed
2009:"Abbreviated Timeline: Wake Debate"
13:
2475:National Catholic Forensics League
2433:. Lulu Press. ISBN 978-1329109322.
1655:
867:
86:it lacks sufficient corresponding
14:
2593:
2453:
1963:
1444:Texas Forensic Association Debate
1414:The National Championship of the
1409:National Catholic Forensic League
1148:
1055:National Catholic Forensic League
41:This article has multiple issues.
1664:
1448:In Texas, most debate occurs in
1378:
1275:
1070:
955:
880:instead of having to negate the
793:
656:
418:
417:
235:
133:
71:
30:
2459:High school debate associations
2278:
2251:
2230:
2208:
2190:
2172:
2143:
2129:"High School Debate at 350 WPM"
1932:Glossary of policy debate terms
1806:Second Affirmative Constructive
1369:
1357:
1222:Speaking skills/communications:
1178:Examples of paradigms include:
731:
144:needs additional citations for
49:or discuss these issues on the
2448:list of debate theory articles
2303:. Princeton University Press.
2292:. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
2120:
2099:
2074:
2054:
2040:
2015:
2001:
1981:
1937:Inter-Collegiate policy debate
1750:First Affirmative Constructive
1496:
1383:
1350:, also called the TOC, at the
1337:
1260:
335:Inter-collegiate policy debate
1:
2334:. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
2238:"Texas Forensics Association"
2127:Kang, Jay (20 January 2012).
1957:
519:National Forensic Association
1977:. Dr. Joe Bellon. p. 8.
1834:Second Negative Constructive
1165:
858:extinction of the human race
785:Advantages and disadvantages
7:
2429:Hanes, T. Russell. (2008).
1925:
1904:Second Affirmative Rebuttal
1778:First Negative Constructive
1520:United States Supreme Court
1470:American Debate Association
946:
562:Washington State University
548:and Trinity College (later
255:. The specific problem is:
10:
2598:
2513:National Debate Tournament
2485:Stoa USA Speech and Debate
2216:"NITOC 2011 Qualification"
2082:"Debate/Forensics History"
1942:Plan inclusive counterplan
1922:," during a debate round.
1876:First Affirmative Rebuttal
1728:Structure of policy debate
1725:
1479:
1462:National Debate Tournament
1455:
1450:Texas Forensic Association
1267:Policy debate competitions
1264:
1061:
1016:
735:
723:Burdens of the affirmative
614:
610:
595:
524:
511:National Debate Tournament
328:Policy debate competitions
18:
16:Form of competitive debate
2284:Cheshier, David. (2002).
2198:"Rural Debate Initiative"
2180:"Urban Debate QuickFacts"
2050:. Wake Forest University.
2011:. Wake Forest University.
1509:is a statement which the
647:
2501:National Forensic League
2150:Cheshire, David (2000).
1975:The Policy Debate Manual
1890:Second Negative Rebuttal
1398:National Forensic League
1019:Evidence (policy debate)
591:
574:Wichita State University
499:Catholic Forensic League
470:(sometimes shortened to
468:cross-examination debate
2540:ForensicsTournament.net
2507:College debate websites
2357:. Perfection Learning.
2202:Rural Debate Initiative
1952:List of policy debaters
1862:First Negative Rebuttal
1390:Tournament of Champions
1348:Tournament of Champions
764:Significance, or Impact
535:Northwestern University
462:is an American form of
101:more precise citations.
2442:policy debate archives
2431:The "How to" of Debate
2388:. Glenco/McGraw-Hill.
2222:. 2017. Archived from
2220:Stoa Speech and Debate
1394:University of Kentucky
1352:University of Kentucky
927:centralized government
546:Wake Forest University
531:Wake Forest University
876:need only negate the
566:Willamette University
554:Georgetown University
2226:on November 6, 2010.
1973:Bellon, Joe (2008).
1688:improve this section
1476:Institutes and camps
1363:Urban debate leagues
1299:improve this section
1094:improve this section
979:improve this section
817:improve this section
680:improve this section
617:Flow (policy debate)
262:improve this article
251:to meet Knowledge's
153:improve this article
2529:Results/Tournaments
2384:Basic Debate 4th Ed
2349:Dana Hensley &
2326:Joe Miller (2006).
1741:Time (High School)
581:"rebuttal" speeches
570:University of Idaho
479:constructive speech
21:Political criticism
2545:Joy of Tournaments
2186:on April 11, 2008.
2109:. Webs.wichita.edu
1229:Hypothesis tester:
1136:Some circuits see
862:global nuclear war
598:Spreading (debate)
587:Style and delivery
464:debate competition
2341:978-0-374-13194-4
1916:
1915:
1848:Cross-examination
1820:Cross-examination
1792:Cross-examination
1764:Cross-examination
1724:
1723:
1716:
1335:
1334:
1327:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1047:cross-examination
1015:
1014:
1007:
935:deconstructionist
888:Negative strategy
853:
852:
845:
716:
715:
708:
457:
456:
308:
307:
300:
290:
289:
282:
253:quality standards
244:This article may
229:
228:
221:
203:
127:
126:
119:
64:
2589:
2407:
2387:
2376:
2345:
2333:
2322:
2273:
2272:
2270:
2269:
2255:
2249:
2248:
2246:
2244:
2234:
2228:
2227:
2212:
2206:
2205:
2194:
2188:
2187:
2182:. Archived from
2176:
2170:
2169:
2167:
2165:
2156:
2147:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2136:
2124:
2118:
2117:
2115:
2114:
2103:
2097:
2096:
2094:
2093:
2084:. Archived from
2078:
2072:
2071:
2069:
2058:
2052:
2051:
2044:
2038:
2037:
2035:
2034:
2019:
2013:
2012:
2005:
1999:
1998:
1996:
1995:
1985:
1979:
1978:
1970:
1735:
1734:
1719:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1699:
1668:
1660:
1513:affirms and the
1511:affirmative team
1330:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1310:
1279:
1271:
1125:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1105:
1074:
1066:
1010:
1003:
999:
996:
990:
959:
951:
931:anthropocentrism
848:
841:
837:
834:
828:
797:
789:
711:
704:
700:
697:
691:
660:
652:
449:
442:
435:
421:
420:
310:
309:
303:
296:
285:
278:
274:
271:
265:
239:
238:
231:
224:
217:
213:
210:
204:
202:
161:
137:
129:
122:
115:
111:
108:
102:
97:this article by
88:inline citations
75:
74:
67:
56:
34:
33:
26:
2597:
2596:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2567:
2566:
2456:
2396:
2365:
2342:
2311:
2281:
2276:
2267:
2265:
2257:
2256:
2252:
2242:
2240:
2236:
2235:
2231:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2196:
2195:
2191:
2178:
2177:
2173:
2163:
2161:
2154:
2148:
2144:
2134:
2132:
2125:
2121:
2112:
2110:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2091:
2089:
2080:
2079:
2075:
2067:
2059:
2055:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2032:
2030:
2021:
2020:
2016:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1993:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1982:
1971:
1964:
1960:
1947:Resolved (film)
1928:
1744:Time (College)
1730:
1720:
1709:
1703:
1700:
1685:
1669:
1658:
1656:Event structure
1499:
1484:
1478:
1468:(CEDA) and the
1458:
1446:
1386:
1381:
1372:
1360:
1340:
1331:
1320:
1314:
1311:
1296:
1280:
1269:
1263:
1253:Stasis oratory:
1168:
1151:
1126:
1115:
1109:
1106:
1091:
1075:
1064:
1021:
1011:
1000:
994:
991:
976:
960:
949:
890:
870:
868:Negation tactic
849:
838:
832:
829:
814:
798:
787:
740:
734:
725:
712:
701:
695:
692:
677:
661:
650:
619:
613:
600:
594:
589:
558:Whitman College
550:Duke University
537:dates to 1855.
527:
453:
404:Impact calculus
304:
293:
292:
291:
286:
275:
269:
266:
259:
240:
236:
225:
214:
208:
205:
168:"Policy debate"
162:
160:
150:
138:
123:
112:
106:
103:
93:Please help to
92:
76:
72:
35:
31:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2595:
2585:
2584:
2579:
2565:
2564:
2558:
2557:
2553:
2552:
2547:
2542:
2537:
2535:Debate Results
2531:
2530:
2526:
2525:
2520:
2515:
2509:
2508:
2504:
2503:
2498:
2492:
2487:
2482:
2477:
2472:
2467:
2461:
2460:
2455:
2454:External links
2452:
2451:
2450:
2444:
2434:
2427:
2418:
2413:
2408:
2394:
2377:
2363:
2346:
2340:
2323:
2309:
2297:Gary Alan Fine
2293:
2280:
2277:
2275:
2274:
2250:
2229:
2207:
2189:
2171:
2142:
2119:
2098:
2073:
2053:
2039:
2014:
2000:
1980:
1961:
1959:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1927:
1924:
1914:
1913:
1910:
1907:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1893:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1879:
1872:
1871:
1868:
1865:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1851:
1844:
1843:
1840:
1837:
1830:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1809:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1795:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1739:
1726:Main article:
1722:
1721:
1704:September 2020
1672:
1670:
1663:
1657:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1641:
1640:
1632:
1631:
1624:
1623:
1616:
1615:
1608:
1607:
1600:
1599:
1592:
1591:
1584:
1583:
1576:
1575:
1568:
1567:
1560:
1559:
1552:
1551:
1544:
1543:
1536:
1535:
1498:
1495:
1480:Main article:
1477:
1474:
1457:
1454:
1445:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1429:
1422:
1419:
1412:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1359:
1356:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1315:September 2020
1283:
1281:
1274:
1265:Main article:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1250:
1232:
1226:
1219:
1212:
1197:
1190:
1167:
1164:
1150:
1149:Speaker points
1147:
1128:
1127:
1110:September 2020
1078:
1076:
1069:
1063:
1060:
1017:Main article:
1013:
1012:
995:September 2020
963:
961:
954:
948:
945:
944:
943:
939:
912:
906:
900:
889:
886:
869:
866:
851:
850:
833:September 2020
801:
799:
792:
786:
783:
779:
778:
768:
767:
761:
754:
736:Main article:
733:
730:
724:
721:
714:
713:
664:
662:
655:
649:
646:
615:Main article:
612:
609:
596:Main article:
593:
590:
588:
585:
539:Boston College
526:
523:
513:(NDT) and the
455:
454:
452:
451:
444:
437:
429:
426:
425:
414:
413:
412:
411:
406:
401:
396:
391:
386:
378:
377:
376:Argument types
373:
372:
371:
370:
365:
359:
358:
353:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
337:
331:
330:
322:
321:
317:
316:
306:
305:
288:
287:
270:September 2020
243:
241:
234:
227:
226:
209:September 2020
141:
139:
132:
125:
124:
107:September 2020
79:
77:
70:
65:
39:
38:
36:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2594:
2583:
2580:
2578:
2577:Policy debate
2575:
2574:
2572:
2563:
2560:
2559:
2555:
2554:
2551:
2548:
2546:
2543:
2541:
2538:
2536:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2521:
2519:
2516:
2514:
2511:
2510:
2506:
2505:
2502:
2499:
2497:
2493:
2491:
2488:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2478:
2476:
2473:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2458:
2457:
2449:
2446:U. Vermont's
2445:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2419:
2417:
2414:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2395:0-8442-5981-0
2391:
2386:
2385:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2364:0-931054-70-2
2360:
2356:
2352:
2347:
2343:
2337:
2332:
2331:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2310:0-691-07450-X
2306:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2282:
2264:
2260:
2254:
2239:
2233:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2211:
2203:
2199:
2193:
2185:
2181:
2175:
2160:
2153:
2146:
2130:
2123:
2108:
2102:
2088:on 2005-12-01
2087:
2083:
2077:
2066:
2065:
2057:
2049:
2043:
2029:on 2007-09-18
2028:
2024:
2018:
2010:
2004:
1990:
1984:
1976:
1969:
1967:
1962:
1953:
1950:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1929:
1923:
1921:
1911:
1908:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1894:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1877:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1855:
1852:
1849:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1793:
1790:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1751:
1748:
1747:
1743:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1718:
1715:
1707:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1683:
1682:
1678:
1673:This section
1671:
1667:
1662:
1661:
1653:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1521:
1516:
1515:negative team
1512:
1508:
1504:
1494:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1473:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1453:
1451:
1436:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1379:Championships
1376:
1367:
1364:
1355:
1353:
1349:
1343:
1329:
1326:
1318:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1284:This section
1282:
1278:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1216:
1215:Games player:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1183:Stock issues:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1146:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1124:
1121:
1113:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1079:This section
1077:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1059:
1056:
1050:
1048:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1009:
1006:
998:
988:
984:
980:
974:
973:
969:
964:This section
962:
958:
953:
952:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
910:
907:
904:
903:Disadvantages
901:
898:
895:
894:
893:
885:
883:
879:
875:
865:
863:
859:
847:
844:
836:
826:
822:
818:
812:
811:
807:
802:This section
800:
796:
791:
790:
782:
776:
773:
772:
771:
765:
762:
758:
755:
752:
749:
748:
747:
745:
739:
729:
720:
710:
707:
699:
696:November 2009
689:
685:
681:
675:
674:
670:
665:This section
663:
659:
654:
653:
645:
642:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
618:
608:
604:
599:
584:
582:
577:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
542:
540:
536:
532:
522:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
487:
484:
480:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:Policy debate
450:
445:
443:
438:
436:
431:
430:
428:
427:
424:
423:Policy debate
416:
415:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
375:
374:
369:
366:
364:
361:
360:
357:
354:
352:
349:
348:
347:
346:
342:
341:
336:
333:
332:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
318:
315:
314:Policy debate
312:
311:
302:
299:
284:
281:
273:
263:
258:
254:
250:
249:
242:
233:
232:
223:
220:
212:
201:
198:
194:
191:
187:
184:
180:
177:
173:
170: –
169:
165:
164:Find sources:
158:
154:
148:
147:
142:This article
140:
136:
131:
130:
121:
118:
110:
100:
96:
90:
89:
83:
78:
69:
68:
63:
61:
54:
53:
48:
47:
42:
37:
28:
27:
22:
2582:Debate types
2437:
2430:
2421:
2383:
2354:
2351:Diana Carlin
2329:
2300:
2289:
2279:Bibliography
2266:. Retrieved
2262:
2253:
2241:. Retrieved
2232:
2224:the original
2219:
2210:
2201:
2192:
2184:the original
2174:
2162:. Retrieved
2158:
2145:
2133:. Retrieved
2122:
2111:. Retrieved
2101:
2090:. Retrieved
2086:the original
2076:
2063:
2056:
2042:
2031:. Retrieved
2027:the original
2017:
2003:
1992:. Retrieved
1983:
1974:
1917:
1731:
1710:
1701:
1686:Please help
1674:
1651:
1642:
1633:
1625:
1617:
1609:
1601:
1593:
1585:
1577:
1569:
1561:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1528:
1524:
1506:
1502:
1500:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1459:
1447:
1392:held at the
1387:
1373:
1370:Rural debate
1361:
1358:Urban debate
1344:
1341:
1321:
1312:
1297:Please help
1285:
1252:
1234:
1228:
1221:
1214:
1200:
1199:
1193:Policymaker:
1192:
1187:stock issues
1182:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1137:
1135:
1131:
1116:
1107:
1092:Please help
1080:
1051:
1043:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1022:
1001:
992:
977:Please help
965:
909:Counterplans
891:
871:
854:
839:
830:
815:Please help
803:
780:
774:
769:
763:
756:
750:
744:stock issues
743:
741:
738:Stock issues
732:Stock issues
726:
717:
702:
693:
678:Please help
666:
643:
639:topicalities
626:
622:
620:
605:
601:
578:
543:
528:
488:
482:
474:
471:
467:
459:
458:
394:Disadvantage
384:Stock issues
320:Organization
313:
294:
276:
267:
260:Please help
256:
245:
215:
206:
196:
189:
182:
175:
163:
151:Please help
146:verification
143:
113:
104:
85:
57:
50:
44:
43:Please help
40:
2562:DelegatePal
2550:Tabroom.com
1497:Resolutions
1482:Debate camp
1464:(NDT), the
1384:High school
1338:Tournaments
1261:Competition
1247:orientalism
1206:: From the
1202:Tabula rasa
878:affirmative
399:Counterplan
264:if you can.
99:introducing
2571:Categories
2268:2022-11-15
2113:2014-05-13
2092:2005-12-01
2033:2014-05-13
1994:2020-03-22
1958:References
1912:6 minutes
1909:5 minutes
1898:6 minutes
1895:5 minutes
1884:6 minutes
1881:5 minutes
1870:6 minutes
1867:5 minutes
1856:3 minutes
1853:3 minutes
1842:9 minutes
1839:8 minutes
1828:3 minutes
1825:3 minutes
1814:9 minutes
1811:8 minutes
1800:3 minutes
1797:3 minutes
1786:9 minutes
1783:8 minutes
1772:3 minutes
1769:3 minutes
1758:9 minutes
1755:8 minutes
1503:resolution
1239:patriarchy
1218:structure.
897:Topicality
882:resolution
568:, and the
505:, and the
472:Cross-X or
409:Topicality
179:newspapers
82:references
46:improve it
1920:prep time
1675:does not
1286:does not
1235:Kritikal:
1166:Paradigms
1143:arguments
1081:does not
1029:tag(line)
966:does not
804:does not
760:advocacy.
757:Inherency
667:does not
351:Structure
52:talk page
2404:34622992
2373:47206277
2353:(2005).
2319:45066311
2299:(2001).
2259:"Topics"
2164:30 March
2135:27 March
1926:See also
1433:Stoa USA
1418:(NAUDL).
1366:debate.
1033:citation
947:Evidence
919:biopower
874:negative
775:Solvency
560:debated
503:Stoa USA
363:Evidence
356:Glossary
246:require
2523:eDebate
2438:Rostrum
2330:Cross-X
2290:Rostrum
2243:27 June
2204:. 2022.
2159:Rostrum
2131:. Wired
1738:Speech
1696:removed
1681:sources
1456:College
1428:(NCFCA)
1307:removed
1292:sources
1102:removed
1087:sources
1062:Judging
987:removed
972:sources
915:Kritiks
825:removed
810:sources
688:removed
673:sources
631:kritiks
623:flowing
611:Flowing
525:History
248:cleanup
193:scholar
95:improve
2436:NFL's
2402:
2392:
2371:
2361:
2338:
2317:
2307:
1906:(2AR)
1892:(2NR)
1878:(1AR)
1864:(1NR)
1836:(2NC)
1808:(2AC)
1780:(1NC)
1752:(1AC)
1243:racism
1225:speed.
929:, and
923:racism
648:Theory
635:disads
343:Format
195:
188:
181:
174:
166:
84:, but
2556:Other
2465:ALOUD
2155:(PDF)
2068:(PDF)
1507:topic
1208:Latin
1196:each.
1025:cards
860:or a
627:flows
592:Speed
200:JSTOR
186:books
2400:OCLC
2390:ISBN
2369:OCLC
2359:ISBN
2336:ISBN
2315:OCLC
2305:ISBN
2245:2013
2166:2012
2137:2012
1679:any
1677:cite
1424:The
1290:any
1288:cite
1085:any
1083:cite
1038:body
970:any
968:cite
808:any
806:cite
751:Harm
671:any
669:cite
483:plan
389:Case
368:Flow
172:news
1690:by
1505:or
1301:by
1211:in.
1138:lay
1096:by
981:by
819:by
682:by
155:by
2573::
2440:,
2398:.
2367:.
2313:.
2288:.
2261:.
2218:.
2200:.
2157:.
1965:^
1522:.
1501:A
1245:,
1241:,
925:,
921:,
864:.
637:,
633:,
564:,
501:,
497:,
493:,
475:CX
55:.
2406:.
2375:.
2344:.
2321:.
2271:.
2247:.
2168:.
2139:.
2116:.
2095:.
2036:.
1997:.
1717:)
1711:(
1706:)
1702:(
1698:.
1684:.
1411:.
1328:)
1322:(
1317:)
1313:(
1309:.
1295:.
1123:)
1117:(
1112:)
1108:(
1104:.
1090:.
1008:)
1002:(
997:)
993:(
989:.
975:.
846:)
840:(
835:)
831:(
827:.
813:.
709:)
703:(
698:)
694:(
690:.
676:.
448:e
441:t
434:v
301:)
295:(
283:)
277:(
272:)
268:(
222:)
216:(
211:)
207:(
197:·
190:·
183:·
176:·
149:.
120:)
114:(
109:)
105:(
91:.
62:)
58:(
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
