Debate Terminology Week 4 Ms Haen Debate Diction
Debate Terminology Week 4 Ms. Haen Debate
Diction n Word choice and how you speak those words – Involves both the way you speak (enunciation) and what the speech actually involves (not using jargon, easy to follow) n When writing cases, consider word choice!! This can be extremely tricky in a case!
Poise n Ease with which debater speaks n Speaking smoothly with confidence – No wavering (in voice or movement) – No stuttering – No “vocal pauses” – No actual pauses
Angry Debater Syndrome (ADS) n A debater who lacks respect for debate etiquette, thus diminishing his/her presentation – It can be considered ADS if you refer to your opponent by NAME or use the pronouns “HE” or “HER”!! – Signs are: speaking with an angry/hostile/rude/overly aggressive tone, interrupting his/her opponent, telling the judge what to do, constantly looking at your opponent, etc.
Sub point n. A minor point that supports the main point n Not the same thing as a contention! – Each sub point would be under a contention or criterion
Tag Line n Headline for any given part of speech that condenses your argument into one sentence – Think of your skeleton case- THOSE are considered taglines! n Hint as to what is in this piece of the constructive – GREAT FOR SIGNPOSTING! – Like a topic sentence in each contention/value/etc. n A tagline should be an argumentative statement – It is NOT “My first contention considers costs. ”
Crystallization n Clarifying and concluding your case done at the end of the last speech n Crystallizing case involves summing up your – Summarizing what they feel have been the crucial areas of conflict throughout the round, and demonstrate how their side has fulfilled its obligations as per the resolution– VOTING ISSUES are within crystallization
Voting Issues n A. k. a. voters n When you tell the judge why he/she should declare you the winner – Typically three in a regular debate; two in this class n Voting issues are arguments that have been won by one side or another that conclude that the resolution is true or false, and the debater(s) want to bring this point up one more time to win debate – These are ARGUMENTS that have been brought up before, not new information!
Negative Burden n The “burden” that NEG brings into the round – Essentially two things: 1) Neg can win by proving AFF wrong OR 2) Neg can win by proving the rez false n NEG proves resolution to be false BY ATTACKING THE AFF CASE – While it’s true the NEG is proving the resolution incorrect, it is important to note that it is doing so by proving AFF wrong – NEG spends most of it’s time on the offense, attacking AFF
Turn n “Turning” a sub point, contention, or entire constructive against your opponent n This can be done by arguing that the argument either concludes – Case actually brings a different result – Case actually brings harm (rather than being beneficial)
Observation COMES BEFORE VALUE IN CONSTRUCTIVE n Can be a couple things… n – Definitions – Things that are “allowed” by the resolution § When talking about murder, you can observe that someone is actually being killed – An assumption of the resolution that provides for fair and reasonable debate § When talking about “murder”, you can almost always observe that the murder was unjust
Conditional n Debaters claim their case is “conditional” when they claim the right conditions have not been met – A slick way of avoiding an argument n EX: Justice is only met when everyone is given a fair trial, but all humans are fallible so no example can prove justice has actually been met
Topicality n All arguments must stem from the resolution – If you can prove your opponent is not “on topic, ” you have put flaws in their case but have not won outright n Example – Resolved: Death penalty is immoral. – If the AFF revolves around the statement, “murder is immoral, ” the debater would be OFF TOPIC because death penalty is not legally defined as murder and it’s not encompassing the WHOLE rez
Warrant This is not necessarily a debate term– more of an argument term you will want to know! n What connects the argument to your support – Like the “why” of an argument n If you don’t make this connection (whether it be explicit or implicit), you are not giving your judge a reason to believe your claim.
Warrant The logical connection between your argument and the evidence (the WHY of the argument). n How your evidence clearly supports your claim is the warrant. n – This is helped by the assumption you make about what your audience thinks about the topic/a statement n Without a clear warrant, your arguments may not make sense! n n Ex: Muffin is sick. WHY? She has a fever and runny nose. Ex: Murder is immoral. WHY? Many cultures see it as unlawfully taking a life OR it goes against one’s morality.
Find the warrant n For the past 10 years, girls have outperformed boys in their grades at MHS. However, boys will consistently perform better on the SAT than girls. Because of this disconnection, some claim that the SAT is biased against girls. – What is the warrant?
Impact n Explanation of why something is important, and thus how it influences the outcome of the debate (the “so what”) – MANY OF US ARE FORGETTING THIS!!!! n Resolved: A salad is more healthy than pizza. – Lettuce is the best source of fiber, as stated by the food pyramid and the FDA. Fiber is important to humans. – WARRANT: All salads contain copious amounts of lettuce. Since all salads have lettuce, they all have fiber. – IMPACT: Since fiber is a necessary part of the human diet, lettuce is essential to the human diet. Therefore, I have proven how salads benefit the human body more than pizzas. No pizza has more lettuce than a pizza…
Impact, cont. n Impacts need to be proven, not just assumed– so make sure to EXPLAIN each impact! n An easy way for your opponent to win is when you do not impact your card to you value/criterion! (so, explain how this card proves your point!)
Quiz on Friday Make sure to make those note cards!
- Slides: 19