Diplomacy & Politics Glossary

The tactic of establishing an initial offer or position that influences the negotiation range and outcomes.

Evaluating your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement to understand your fallback options if negotiations fail.

Adjusting your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement based on new information or changing circumstances during negotiation.

Improving your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement strengthens your negotiation position by increasing viable options outside the current deal.

Methods used to enhance the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement by expanding options and strengthening fallback positions before or during negotiation.

A group of delegates or countries with similar interests or policies collaborating to advance common goals.

A voting style where judges award wins based on the strength of a single block of arguments rather than weighing all arguments individually.

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

When a team makes arguments that are unlikely to convince judges, effectively wasting their voting power.

The strategy of organizing local volunteers and resources to directly engage and mobilize voters.

A temporary break in formal debate allowing delegates to discuss issues informally, either moderated or unmoderated.

A planned approach to making compromises during negotiation to gradually reach agreement without losing key interests.

A counterplan is an alternative proposal presented by the negative team to solve the affirmative's problem differently.

Cross-examination prep involves preparing specific questions and strategies to expose weaknesses or contradictions in the opponent’s case.

A targeted question posed during cross-examination intended to clarify or challenge an opponent’s argument or evidence.

The technique of asking targeted questions to clarify or challenge an opponent's argument during cross-examination.

The planned approach for questioning opponents during cross-examination to expose weaknesses or clarify arguments.

The process of asking targeted questions during crossfire to expose weaknesses and clarify arguments.

Selecting and extracting concise, relevant excerpts from evidence sources to use effectively during speeches or cross-examination.

A national approach to prevent cyber attacks by threatening credible retaliation or denial of benefits to potential attackers. It adapts traditional deterrence principles to cyberspace.

Special instructions issued by crisis staff to delegates to influence committee developments.

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

An alliance of two blocs working closely together to influence committee decisions or draft resolutions.

A policy debate tactic where two disadvantages are presented together to overwhelm the affirmative case.

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.

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.

Presenting a large amount of evidence rapidly to overwhelm opponents and judges, often sacrificing clarity.

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

The final focus is the last speech that summarizes key arguments and explains why a team should win the debate.

An argument that challenges the opponent's framework by proposing a different standard or value to judge the round.

The use of economic instruments to achieve geopolitical objectives and influence global power dynamics.

The use of economic instruments to achieve geopolitical objectives and enhance national power.

The comprehensive plan that guides a team's overall approach, including argument selection and theory, across an entire debate round or tournament.

A private meeting among delegates to negotiate and draft resolutions away from formal committee sessions.

A country whose strategic position or role disproportionately influences regional or global stability.

The act of persuading or negotiating with other delegates to gain support for resolutions or positions.

A designated time during a conference when delegates actively engage in negotiation and alliance-building outside formal debate.

A political doctrine emphasizing pragmatic, sometimes amoral strategies for acquiring and maintaining power, often associated with cunning and duplicity.

In Policy debate, when the negative team delivers two speeches consecutively to develop arguments and refute the affirmative case.

The overall plan or approach the negative team uses to refute the affirmative's case in debate rounds.

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.

Strategy where a great power uses regional allies to check rivals instead of deploying its own forces extensively abroad.

A fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions within a field or organization.

Identifying and analyzing stakeholders’ influence and interest to strategize engagement and negotiation.

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.

The allotted time each team has to prepare or strategize during a debate round between speeches.

Carefully timing and ordering concessions in negotiation to encourage reciprocation and build trust.

Offering concessions in response to counterparts’ compromises to build trust and reach agreement.

A strategic method that uses hypothetical future scenarios to prepare for uncertainties and guide decision-making.

A style of policy debate characterized by extremely rapid delivery to present numerous arguments in limited time, aiming to overwhelm opponents and judges.

The technique of speaking very quickly during a debate round to present as many arguments as possible within limited time.

Identifying and assessing the influence and interests of individuals or groups involved in or affected by a project or policy.

The process of identifying and analyzing stakeholders to prioritize engagement strategies and manage relationships effectively.

Strategically allocating and controlling time during negotiations to maximize effectiveness and outcomes.

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.

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

An argument that a judge should use to decide the winner of the debate round based on its importance and relevance.

Allowing another speaker to take over remaining time during cross-examination or questioning periods.

An initial, informal version of a draft resolution circulated to gather feedback before formal submission.

Strategies to identify and exploit the Zone of Possible Agreement for successful deal-making.