Bỏ qua, đến danh sách thuật ngữ

Từ điển Tranh biện

Tra cứu 131 thuật ngữ WSDC, AP và BP, chuẩn hóa theo WSDC 2026, UADC 2025 và WUDC 2027.

Thể thức

Chương

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.

Individual Feedback

Chương 14. Judging Process · Part E: Judging

Mọi thể thức

Feedback provided by judges to individual speakers, usually taking place straight after the OA.

Content: Should focus on their execution of their role, and strategic/stylistic choices.
Constructive Approach: Cover what they did well (using their language/points from the debate) and what they can do better (illustrating with specific examples from the round, not just theoretical advice). Keep it friendly and constructive.

Individual Feedback

Xem thêm