Impact
Chương 1. Argument · Part A: Fundamentals
The real-world consequence or importance of an argument ("why it matters"). While a mechanism proves how an outcome occurs, the impact proves why that outcome is significant enough to win the debate.
131 thuật ngữ
Lộ trình
- 1. Argument
- ArgumentAn argument refers to a claim that a team makes which suggests that their side of the motion is correct.
- Practical ArgumentAn argument that relies on demonstrating tangible benefits or harms.
- Principled ArgumentAn argument that explains why a motion should stand regardless of practical outcomes.
- MechanismA mechanism (or Warrant) is a reason provided by the team that is concerned with explaining why or how something will occur.
- WarrantAnother term for a Mechanism. Common in the United States circuit, a warrant is a reason provided by the team that is concerned with explaining why or how…
- Structural ReasonA structural reason refers to an overarching reason that applies past just an individual circumstance or example and can be generalised.
- ImpactThe real-world consequence or importance of an argument ("why it matters").
- AssertionA claim made without sufficient supporting reasoning.
- First PrinciplesArguing from fundamental logical truths, moral axioms, and predictable human behavior rather than relying solely on specific empirical examples or statistics.
- BacklashA classic opposition mechanism asserting that a well-intentioned policy (e.g., aggressively regulating hate speech) will provoke a reactionary pushback from…
- Building / Constructive and Destructive MaterialBuilding means developing a case or argument.AP
- 2. Rebuttal
- Rebuttal (Direct Rebuttal)Rebuttal refers to responding to the material that is provided by the other side.
- EngagementHow directly a team deals with the other side's material and its POIs.BP
- MitigationMitigation refers to arguments and rebuttal that does not defeat an opposing argument or show that it’s untrue, but instead demonstrates that the argument…
- Premise DenialA method of rebuttal where a debater argues that the core factual assumption of the opponent's claim is entirely false or non-existent.
- Link SeveranceA method of rebuttal where a debater concedes the premise (X happens) but attacks the mechanism, proving that X does not actually lead to the opponent's…
- Impact MitigationA method of rebuttal where a debater concedes that X leads to Y, but argues that outcome Y is insignificant, manageable, or irrelevant compared to other…
- Link Turn (Judo)A form of rebuttal where a debater argues that the opponent's premise (X) actually leads to the exact opposite of their claimed outcome, turning their own…
- Pre-emptionA strategic tool where a speaker anticipates and responds to the opposing side's arguments or case before the opponent has explicitly made them.
- Steel-manningEngaging with the strongest reasonable interpretation of an opponent's argument before attempting to defeat it.
- StrawmanningA logical fallacy where a speaker misrepresents an opponent's argument in a weaker, oversimplified form to easily attack it.
- 3. Weighing
- ClashA clash refers to a core disagreement between opposing teams that is important for dictating who will win the round.
- WeighingWeighing occurs when a team explains why the argument they have established is more important than the argument that has been established by the other team.
- Comparative (Comparative Analysis)A requirement across WSDC, BP, and AP that arguments must not exist in a vacuum.
- DeltaThe marginal change or practical difference between the Proposition and Opposition worlds.
- Wash (Washed Out)When an argument or clash applies equally to both sides or is effectively tied, rendering it irrelevant to the judge's final decision.
- Symmetrical / Asymmetrical – Example: "Both sides increase government debt."
- Marginal (Marginal Impact)A small, incremental shift in the status quo.
- ThresholdThe specific line or burden of proof a team must cross for their argument to be credited.
- Tipping PointA structural vulnerability where a small marginal change causes an irreversible, cascading shift in outcomes (e.g., an economic bubble bursting, or a regime…
- 4. Motions
- MotionThe motion is the topic or subject of the debate.
- Information SlideA paragraph of background information provided before the motion that explains the context of the debate.
- Impromptu / Prepared MotionsThe two types of motions in the WSDC format.WSDC
- Policy/Action MotionsMotions that ask teams to consider the merits and demerits of implementing a proposed action.
- Analysis/Judgment MotionsMotions that evaluate phenomena, policies, narratives, or actions as they actually exist or would likely exist, without inventing hypothetical models.
- Actor MotionsMotions framed explicitly as This House, as X, would Y.
- 5. Case Building
- CaseThe case is the full set of arguments and positions (such as their set-up, model, etc.) that a team uses to support their side of the motion.
- BurdenA burden refers to what a team needs to prove, defend, or establish to support its side, given the wording of the motion.
- StanceA stance refers to the general position that a team is taking in the debate.
- Status QuoThe current state of affairs in the world before any proposed policy is implemented.
- CharacterisationCharacterisation refers to grounding the debate by explaining what it looks like in the real world.
- FramingFraming occurs when a team explains why certain issues, actors, or contexts are more or less relevant than others to how a debate or clash is evaluated.
- Case DivisionThe outline provided by the 1st speaker (Proposition or Opposition) describing how their team's arguments will be split among their different speakers.WSDC
- Path to VictoryThe strategic route or combination of arguments and clashes a team relies on to win the round.
- StakeholderA specific group of people, vulnerable population, or institutional actor that is materially or emotionally affected by the motion.
- IncentiveThe internal psychological, political, or financial motivation that drives an actor to behave in a certain way.
- CapacityThe material, legal, or political ability of an actor to actually execute their incentives.
- Meta Commentary (Strategic Commentary)Meta commentary refers to observations made about the debate which help to establish why a team is winning or losing.
- 6. Definitions & Opposition Strategy
- DefinitionsThe process by which the 1st Proposition explains what the motion means.
- Squirreling (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that distorts the motion to run a pre-prepared case by asserting a tenuous link.
- Truism (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that makes the motion obviously true and thus undebatable.
- Tautology (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that makes the motion true by definition through circular logic.
- Violation of 'Obvious Meaning' (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that ignores the plain, expected interpretation of the motion despite it being clear.
- Unexpected Redefinition of a Word (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that redefines a key term in a way not accepted by ordinary usage.
- Restrictive Definition (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that narrows a general motion to a specific example, avoiding the full debate.
- Overly General Definition (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that makes a specific motion too abstract, avoiding the actual issue.
- Vague Definition (Unfair Definition)A definition that fails to clearly answer vital questions about what is meant by the motion or what will happen under the policy defended.
- Manipulation of Absolute Words (Unfair Definition)An unfair definition that takes words like "all" literally to set an impossible burden or shield from Opposition.
- Accept and Debate (Opposition Option)When faced with an unfair or unexpected definition, the Opposition proceeds directly to rebut the Proposition’s case and presents its own.
- Challenge (Opposition Option)When faced with an unreasonable definition (e.g.
- Broaden / Shrink (Opposition Option)When the Proposition's definition is overbroad or too narrow (focusing on only one part of a general motion), the Opposition broadly accepts the…
- "Even If" (Opposition Strategy)Used in combination with Challenge or Broaden to hedge or maximise clash.
- Positive CaseAn affirmative case presented by the Opposition showing why their world or alternative is better than the Proposition's (e.g., arguing the status quo is…
- Negative CaseA case that focuses entirely on attacking the Proposition's case by showing their arguments fail or are actively harmful, without presenting affirmative…WSDC
- Countermodel & Equivalent Counter-fiat – BP (WUDC): the counter-prop must use the same or fewer resources of each relevant type than Government's policy.
- 7. Policy Modelling
- Set-upSet-up is a broad term that describes the 1st Proposition, and often the 1st Opposition, explaining their vision of what the world will look like on either…
- FiatFiat refers to the Proposition’s right to define and model a motion within reasonable constraints.
- ModellingThe process by which the Proposition chooses how to implement the action specified in a policy motion.
- CounterfactualAn alternative reality or history developed by the Proposition in "This House regrets" (THR) motions.
- Fiat Abuse (Magic Wanding)When a team unreasonably abuses their modelling fiat by assuming perfect implementation, infinite resources, or zero political backlash without sufficient…
- Mutually ExclusiveWhen two policies, models, or outcomes cannot logically coexist.
- Hardline / SoftlineTerms used to describe how extreme or moderate a team's stance or model is.
- 8. WSDC Format
- Speaker Roles (1st, 2nd, 3rd)The 8-minute constructive speeches that make up the main debate in WSDC.WSDC
- Reply SpeechesA 4-minute summary of the debate given by either the 1st or 2nd speaker of a team, beginning with the Opposition and ending with the Proposition.WSDC
- Extension (WSDC Informal Usage)A term often borrowed to describe the introduction of new analysis, new mechanisms, new impacts, or a deeply new strategic frame added to an existing…WSDC
- 9. BP Format
- Opening Government (OG) / Opening Opposition (OO)The two teams of the Opening Half. Opening Government (OG) speaks first and third in the round (Prime Minister, then Deputy Prime Minister); Opening…BP
- Closing Government (CG) / Closing Opposition (CO)The two teams of the Closing Half. Closing Government (CG) speaks fifth and seventh (Member of Government, then Government Whip); Closing Opposition (CO)…BP
- Prime Minister (PM) / Leader of the Opposition (LO)The first speakers of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition teams, respectively.BP
- Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) / Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)The second speakers of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition teams.BP
- Member of Government (MG) / Member of Opposition (MO)The first speakers of the Closing Government and Closing Opposition teams.BP
- Government Whip (GW) / Opposition Whip (OW)The second speakers of Closing Government and Closing Opposition.BP
- Opening Half / Closing HalfThe division of the four teams in a BP round.BP
- ExtensionBP Formal Requirement: The Member of Government/Member of Opposition must extend the debate with material not previously contributed by their side.BP
- Bench WeighingA BP-specific term describing the explicit comparison a Closing team makes between their extension and their Opening team's case to justify why their…BP
- Diagonal Bench DynamicsComparisons between teams on opposite halves and opposite sides: OG vs CO and OO vs CG.BP
- 10. AP Format
- Asian Parliamentary (AP)A format with two teams of three speakers, Government (GOV) and Opposition (OPP).AP
- AP Prime Minister (PM) / Leader of the Opposition (LO)The first speakers of Government and Opposition.AP
- AP Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) / Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)The second speakers. They rebut the opposing case, rebuild their first speaker's arguments, and provide additional arguments. DPM also addresses any…AP
- AP Government Whip (GW) / Opposition Whip (OW)The third speakers. They organise the round into core issues or clashes, rebut the opposing team, defend their own case, and explain why their team's…AP
- AP Reply Speech / Biased AdjudicationA 4-minute assessment explaining why the team's wins matter more than its losses, highlighting unanswered arguments and the value of its context.AP
- Motion SetThe three motions released for a round, from which the teams select one through ranking and veto.AP
- Motion Ranking / PreferenceEach team ranks the motions 1 (most preferred), 2, and 3 (veto), then simultaneously reveals its rankings while preserving the original motion order.AP
- Motion VetoA team's rejection of its third-ranked motion.AP
- AP Preparation TimeAt UADC 2025, 30 minutes, including up to 5 minutes for motion selection and travel to the room.AP
- 11. Speech Procedure
- Points of Information (POIs)Short questions or statements offered by the opposing team during the main constructive speeches.
- Point of Clarification (POC)A specific type of POI offered (usually to the 1st Proposition/Prime Minister) strictly to ask a question about how the setup or model works, rather than to…
- Protected TimeTime during which POIs cannot be offered: the first and last minute of a substantive speech and the entire reply speech.
- POI Cooldown & BadgeringBadgering (also badgering or barracking) is offering Points of Information too frequently or aggressively during a constructive speech, or heckling,…
- Cutting Off a POIThe current speaker may interrupt a POI before 15 seconds and resume their speech; the offeror must stop.
- Grace PeriodA short allowance to conclude after the allotted speech time.WSDCBP
- Order / Calling OrderThe Chair's intervention to restore appropriate conduct, such as stopping badgering, an overlong POI, disruptive discussion, or other breaches of etiquette.
- 12. Consistency & Fairness
- ContradictionTeams must not contradict themselves or their partners.APBP
- KnifingWhen a speaker contradicts an argument, stance, or concession made by a previous speaker on their own team.BP
- New MaterialArguments or impacts that have not been previously raised in the debate.
- EquityThe policies and practices intended to make debate inclusive and safe, including protections against discrimination and harassment.
- Iron-personingBP (WUDC, preliminary rounds): When an approved medical or equity circumstance prevents one teammate from debating, the other may prepare alone and deliver…BP
- 13. Judging Principles
- Ordinary Intelligent Person (OIP) / Ordinary Intelligent Voter (OIV)A hypothetical perspective used by judges to evaluate debates and definitions.
- PersuasivenessBP and AP judges decide which team was most persuasive.APBP
- Matter / MannerTerms for the analysis supporting an argument's truth and importance (matter) and the clarity and rhetorical force used to communicate it (manner).AP
- Role FulfilmentThe requirement in BP debating for each team and speaker to fulfill their specific strategic burdens (e.g., Opening Government must define the motion,…BP
- Stepping In (Judge Intervention)When a judge fills gaps in reasoning or constructs arguments for a team while deciding the round.
- 14. Judging Process
- Chair (Administrative Responsibilities)In addition to judging, the Chair is responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of everyone in the room and ensuring all rules are followed.
- Panelist / Voting JudgeA Panelist is a supporting adjudicator whose independent ballot counts towards the round result.AP
- Trainee JudgeA junior adjudicator who watches the debate and participates in the post-round panel discussion to learn and develop their judging skills.
- Conferral JudgingWSDC: Panel discussion before independent final ballots.
- Cyclic TiesA complex judging scenario in BP panels where, through a series of pairwise comparisons, three (or four) teams beat each other in a circle (e.g., A beats B,…BP
- Ranked Pairs MethodA mathematical tie-breaking voting system used by BP judging panels to resolve Cyclic Ties when the panel cannot agree on a final ranking.BP
- Oral Adjudication (OA)An oral adjudication (OA) is the short explanation a judge gives after the debate to clarify the decision and help teams understand why one side won.
- Individual FeedbackFeedback provided by judges to individual speakers, usually taking place straight after the OA.
- Judge Feedback (Feedback on Adjudicators)The formal system where debaters (and often fellow judges) evaluate and score their adjudicators after a round.
- 15. Scoring
- Judging Criteria by FormatThe primary metrics by which judges evaluate debates differ fundamentally by format:
- Downward/Upward Pressure(WSDC primarily) Pressure refers to the effect of a particular action on an adjudicator’s assessment of a given category (Content, Style, or Strategy).WSDC
- Margins and Speaker ScalesThe numerical scoring metrics for evaluating speeches.
- 16. Tournament Structure
- In-round (Preliminary Round)The preliminary stages of a tournament where all teams compete to accumulate points.
- Out-round (Elimination Round)The knockout stages of a tournament (e.g., Octo-finals, Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, Grand Final) that occur after the preliminary in-rounds.
- BreakQualification of teams or judges for elimination rounds.
- Power-pairing / Power-matchingPairing teams with the same or similar number of wins after the initial random round.
- Top RoomIn power-matched preliminaries, the top room is the room containing the highest-ranked teams at that point in the tournament.
- Bubble Round / Bubble RoomA preliminary round or matchup near the qualification threshold, often late in the tournament.
- Adj. Core / CAP / CAThe chief or core adjudicators who create motion sets, allocate judges, and oversee the quality of adjudication.
- 17. Slang
- Hear Hear (HH)An expression of agreement with or emphasis on a speaker's point, sometimes written as HH in online debate.
Không tìm thấy thuật ngữ
Thử từ khóa ngắn hơn, bỏ bớt bộ lọc, hoặc tìm bằng tên tiếng Anh của thuật ngữ.