P.F. Terms and Jargon
Delink: the response, often made in rebuttal, that one or multiple parts of the opponent's link is wrong (their argument is untrue).
Non-Unique: the response, usually made in rebuttal, that the opponent's link or impact happens under either world (takes out the uniqueness of the opponent's argument)
Fiat Power: the idea that the resolution is immediately passed under the affirmative.
Disadvantage (also called a "disad." or "DA"): a unique reason as to how the other side harms society; their link leads to a separate, independent impact.
Turn: a response, usually made in rebuttal, that says the opponent's argument is actually offense for the other side (includes both link turns and impact turns).
Top-Shelf Response: a broader response, made in rebuttal, that applies to the opponent's contention in general, as opposed to nuanced points on the line-by-line.
Line-By-Line: the specific assertions/claims made by a team on the flow (includes uniqueness, warrants, links, impacts, etc) in the order that they appeared in speech.
The Flow (noun): the place where the arguments made in each speech are recorded
Flowing (verb): the process of recording the arguments made in the debate (on paper/computer/etc.)
Uniqueness: analysis of the status-quo world (depending on the argument, one may argue that the present world is either good or bad)
Link: reason as to why one's argument leads their impact to occur; the various steps that lead from one's advocacy (aff/neg of the resolution) to what they are ultimately trying to prove.
Warrant: the reasoning behind one of the steps in a link (i.e. why one thing leads to another, why an actor will take a specific action, etc.)
Impact: what the effects of your argument are (think- who is impacted, and how that group is affected)
Weighing (aka Impact Calculus): why one's impacts are important, especially in comparison to the opposing side's impacts; why one side matters more.
Scope: the weighing mechanism that deals with how many people/regions are affected; how broad the impact's effects are (ex. one billion people dying from nuclear winter has a broader scope than 100,000 dying from regional conflict)
Severity: the weighing mechanism that deals with how severe/drastic the impact is (ex. death is more severe than contracting a mild cold)
Reversibility: the weighing mechanism that deals with whether or not the effects of the impact can be undone (ex. economic recession is mostly reversible, whereas death is not)
Magnitude: the weighing mechanism that encompasses the extent of an impact, generally thought of as severity multiplied by scope.
Time-Frame: the weighing mechanism that deals with the timing of the impact; considers when the impact first materializes, as well as how long it lasts (long-term v. short term)
Urgency: the weighing mechanism that deals with how urgently the impact should be solved (i.e. solving a war that has just broken out is more urgent than solving the negative effects of a policy that will be implemented in five years).
Probability: the likelihood of an impact actually occurring (i.e. nuclear war is less likely than conventional conflict); keep in mind that certain judges (generally tech/flow judges) will only consider probability weighing when it is paired with defense, as a conceded impact has a 100% probability of materializing.
Link-In: the weighing mechanism that analyzes that the impact of one argument leads to the impacts of the opponent's argument (i.e. conflict links into economic recession since war disrupts trade, cripples investment, destroys infrastructure, etc)
Short Circuit: the weighing mechanism that argues that the impact of one argument prevents the (positive) impact of the opponent's argument from occurring (i.e. conflict short circuits economic growth by destroying infrastructure and disrupting trade)
Prerequisite: the weighing mechanism that analyzes that the impact of one argument must occur before the impact of another argument can occur (i.e. economic growth is a prerequisite to solving climate change because a nation without a strong economy does not have the financial capabilities to invest in green/renewable energy)
Offense: in the debate, the points/claims/arguments that are a direct reason to vote for your team (reasons as to why your side is good, or the opposing side is bad); generally includes case arguments, turns, disadvantages, and offensive overviews.
Defense: in the debate, the points/arguments/claims that are reasons as to why the other side is incorrect, but are not deliberate reasons to vote for you (remember, just saying that the opposing side is wrong is not offense); generally includes defensive overviews, delinks, and non-uniques.
Overview: generally made in rebuttal, overviews are overarching responses that apply to all arguments made in the debate (they can be offensive or defensive, depending on the content of the overview)
Tech Over Truth: the way of evaluating a round in which the judge assumes that uncontested arguments made in the debate space are true, despite their inherent truthfulness in real life (i.e. if both sides agree that the sky is green, then the sky is green in the context of the round).
Framing: the perspective through which the judge should view the round or weighing debate (i.e. utilitarianism, deontological framing, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, structural violence, etc)
Blocks: usually read in rebuttal, responses to various arguments on the other side
Blockfile: a file of blocks; a document of various responses to arguments on the opposing side of the debate to be read in rebuttal.
Spike: an argument or claim, read in constructive, that preempts a common response that the opposing side tends to make in rebuttal (i.e. writing in case that mutually assured destruction - M.A.D. -does not prevent nuclear war, if your impact is nuclear war)
Tabula Rasa: as applied to judges, the idea that the judge comes into the round with no prior conceptions of the world; the mind is a "blank slate," so a "tabula rasa judge" is definitionally is tech over truth.
Frontline: a defense of one's own argument made in response to a rebuttal argument from the opposing side, typically made in second-rebuttal or first summary
Meta-weighing: the comparison between two weighing mechanisms (i.e. timeframe is more important than scope)
Link Turn: a turn on the link level; the opponent's link leads to their impact increasing, rather than decreasing, or vise vera.
Impact Turn: a turn on the impact level; the analysis that argues that the opponent's impact has the opposite value than they say it does; the opponent's impact is bad as opposed to good, or vise versa (ex. authoritarianism = good, etc.)
Analytic: an analytic argument is an argument made based upon reasoning, empirics, or logic. (Typically, analytics are not accompanied by carded evidence).
Break: a term used by debaters to express making it to elimination rounds; if you make it to elimination rounds (after a set of preliminary rounds), you "break" at the tournament.
Preliminary Rounds: most tournaments will have a set number of preliminary (prelim.) rounds that each team will participate in. On the national circuit, most tournaments have five-seven preliminary rounds.
Utilitarianism: in the context of public forum, this is basic cost-benefit analysis (most judges default to cost-benefit analysis). In ethics, utilitarianism holds that the best choice is the one that maximizes happiness/utility for the greatest quantity of people (of course, this is subjective within itself).
Deontology: this type of framing says that the morality of an action is determined by a clear set of moral principles, not based upon the consequences of an action. For example, sacrificing one person to save four is not moral. (Deontology is fairly uncommon in public forum).
knowledge will bring you the opportunity to make a difference
- Claire Fagin
