Diplomacy & Politics Glossary

An ad hominem attack targets a person’s character instead of addressing their argument.

A logical fallacy that argues a claim is true because many people believe it.

The structured set of arguments presented by the affirmative team to support the resolution in policy debate.

An argument that presents a different disadvantage to the same plan or counterplan, offering a separate negative impact.

Accepting a claim as true solely because an authority figure endorses it, without evaluating the evidence.

A comprehensive argument that covers multiple points, often used to preemptively respond to opponent claims.

A technique to connect an argument from one context or framework to another, maintaining its relevance across different debates.

A claim that connects two seemingly opposing arguments to show compatibility or to mitigate conflict.

The obligation a debater has to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim or argument in the debate round.

The obligation of a team to respond and refute opposing arguments to maintain their position in the debate.

The structured format of a piece of evidence including the tag, citation, and body in debate speeches.

An argument that directly reverses the opponent’s case by showing their claims actually support your position.

A causal fallacy wrongly assumes one event causes another without sufficient evidence.

Selecting only evidence that supports a particular conclusion while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

An argument where the conclusion is included in the premise, offering no actual evidence.

A claim is a statement that asserts a debater's position or argument in a round.

Direct engagement between opposing arguments where debaters confront and respond to each other’s points.

The initial speeches in a debate round where teams build their case and present their main arguments for the first time.

A main point or argument presented by a debater to support their overall case or position.

An argument that a proposed plan will cause negative consequences or harms that outweigh its benefits.

The disadvantage link explains how the affirmative plan causes the negative’s disadvantage scenario to occur.

A strategy where a debater extends two arguments from previous speeches to maintain their relevance and challenge the opponent’s case.

A negative team strategy where both speakers present separate blocks of arguments instead of splitting the negative block.

A strategic argument where a debater turns an opponent's claim and its impact to support their own case simultaneously.

An argument or contention that is not addressed by the opposing team, often considered conceded or uncontested.

An argument that is not responded to by the opposing team, effectively conceding it for the round.

An argument in later speeches that develops and strengthens a previously introduced contention or point.

An argument in the rebuttal phase that extends and strengthens a previously made contention to maintain its relevance.

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that weakens an argument's validity or reliability.

An error in reasoning where an argument relies on irrelevant information to support a conclusion.

Assuming that because one event follows another, the first caused the second without sufficient evidence.

A logical fallacy that presents two options as the only possibilities when others exist.

The assumed authority to implement a plan or policy for the sake of argument without concern for political feasibility.

Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or unrepresentative sample of data.

An impact explains the significance or consequence of an argument within the context of the debate round.

A method of comparing impacts by weighing their magnitude, probability, and timeframe to prioritize arguments.

The process of comparing magnitude, probability, and timeframe to evaluate which impact is more significant.

The process of evaluating and explaining the significance and magnitude of an argument's consequences.

A logical consequence or effect that follows from an argument or claim, demonstrating its significance in the debate context.

A kritik critiques underlying assumptions or ideologies in the opponent's arguments rather than their explicit claims.

A plan or theory proposed by the negative team to replace or avoid the problematic assumptions criticized in a kritik.

The connection or assumption that the affirmative team’s arguments have that the kritik challenges or critiques.

A kritik link argument demonstrates the connection between the opponent’s argument and a problematic assumption targeted by the kritik.

The connection between the opposing argument and the kritik’s philosophical critique demonstrating how the argument perpetuates harm.

A specific claim within a kritik that connects the opponent's argument to a harmful assumption or ideology.

A link connects an argument's claim to a specific impact or consequence that justifies why the claim matters in the debate context.

An argument that reverses an opponent's link to the impact, showing their argument actually supports your side.

The speech where the negative team presents their initial arguments, including disadvantages, counterplans, or kritiks.

An argument claiming that the negative impact or disadvantage is already occurring or inevitable regardless of the affirmative plan.

Arguments that do not directly respond to the opponent's case but attack other parts of their position like disadvantages or theory.

An argument introduced by the negative that does not directly respond to the affirmative case but attacks the resolution or presents alternative perspectives.

Drawing a broad conclusion from limited or insufficient evidence.

A theory argument that tests whether the affirmative and counterplan can coexist without contradiction.

Arguing against an opponent's potential arguments before they are presented to reduce their impact.

An argument introduced early in the round to anticipate and neutralize potential attacks from the opposing team.

Arguments made early in the debate round to anticipate and counter the opponent’s expected points.

An argument that challenges the legitimacy of an opponent’s argument or action based on debate rules and norms.

A rebuttal is a speech or argument that directly challenges and refutes the opponent's claims.

A speech focused on refuting opponent arguments and reinforcing one’s own case, typically shorter and more concise.

Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the main issue in an argument or discussion.

A slippery slope fallacy claims a small step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without proof.

Misrepresenting or oversimplifying an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack or refute.

A debate focused on procedural arguments about rules, fairness, or judge standards rather than substantive issues.

A structured argument that outlines a procedural or theoretical claim with standards and voting issues.

Criticizing the emotion or delivery of a message rather than its content to undermine the speaker’s argument.

An argument that reverses the meaning or impact of an opponent’s claim, showing it actually supports your position.

An argument that reverses an opponent's claim or impact to become an advantage for your side.

An argument that reverses the opponent's claim to benefit one’s own side instead of merely negating it.

In Policy debate, the argument that a particular disadvantage or impact is currently not happening or is unlikely without the affirmative plan.

A standard or mechanism used in Lincoln-Douglas debate to measure which value is best upheld in the round.

An argument or reason given to the judge for why they should vote in favor of one team over the other.

A warrant provides reasoning or evidence that connects a claim to its conclusion, justifying why the claim should be accepted.

The reasoning that connects a claim to its supporting evidence or explanation in an argument.

Switching between unrelated points to confuse or distract from the main issue in debate.