Policy Debate Level 2 - Building & Answering Arguments

focused on how students build, answer, compare, and extend arguments, including offense/defense, turns, uniqueness, impact calculus, line-by-line, evidence comparison, and common evidence ethics terms.

Argument

A claim supported by reasoning or evidence that is used to persuade the judge.

Claim

The conclusion or statement a debater wants the judge to accept as true.

Warrant

The reasoning that explains why a claim is true or why evidence supports it.

Impact

The consequence of an argument that explains why the argument matters.

Link

The connection between an action or event and the consequence that follows from it.

Internal Link

An intermediate step that connects the initial link to the final impact.

Uniqueness

An explanation of what is happening in the status quo before the affirmative plan occurs.

Impact Calculus

Comparing competing impacts to determine which should matter most to the judge.

Magnitude

The size or severity of an impact.

Probability

How likely an impact is to occur.

Timeframe

How quickly an impact is expected to occur.

Reversibility

Whether the harm caused by an impact can be undone or repaired.

Scope

How many people, places, or systems are affected by an impact.

Offense

An argument that gives the judge a positive reason to vote for your side.

Defense

An argument that reduces the strength, likelihood, or importance of the opponent's offense.

Takeout

A defensive argument that says an opponent's argument is false, weak, or does not happen.

Turn

An argument showing that an opponent's claim becomes a reason to support your side.

Link Turn

An argument that says the opponent has the direction of causation backward.

Impact Turn

An argument that says the consequence the opponent calls bad is actually good, or vice versa.

Straight Turn

Answering an argument only with turns and not with defensive arguments.

Double Turn

A mistake in which a debater makes both a link turn and an impact turn, which can accidentally support the opponent's argument.

Non-Unique

An argument that says the supposed disadvantage or harm is already happening in the status quo.

No Link

An argument that says the plan or action does not trigger the opponent's claimed consequence.

No Internal Link

An argument that says a step in the opponent's chain of reasoning is missing or unsupported.

No Impact

An argument that says the claimed consequence does not occur or is not important enough to matter.

Solvency Takeout

An argument that says the affirmative plan cannot solve the problem it identifies.

Solvency Turn

An argument that says the affirmative plan makes the problem worse rather than solving it.

Extend

To carry an argument into a later speech and explain why it still matters.

Extension

A later-speech explanation that continues an earlier argument, including its warrant and importance.

Drop

When a team fails to answer an opponent's argument.

Concede

To accept or stop contesting an argument made by the other team.

Cross-Apply

To use an argument made in one part of the flow as an answer somewhere else.

Group

To answer several similar arguments together with one response.

Overview

A short explanation at the beginning of a position that frames how the judge should understand the arguments that follow.

Under-view

A short explanation placed after the line-by-line answers that summarizes or compares the position.

Line-by-Line

Answering arguments in the order they appeared on the flow.

Frontline

A prepared set of common answers to an argument or position.

Block

A prepared argument or set of answers that can be read in a speech.

Analytic

An argument made through reasoning rather than by reading quoted evidence.

Evidence Comparison

Explaining why one team's evidence is more credible, recent, qualified, specific, or well-reasoned than the other team's.

Author Qualifications

Information showing why an evidence source has expertise or credibility on the topic.

Recency

How recently evidence was published or updated.

Specificity

How directly evidence applies to the exact argument, policy, or situation being debated.

Card Clipping

Failing to read all of the highlighted words in evidence while implying that they were read. This is considered an evidence ethics violation.

Power Tagging

Using a tag that claims the evidence proves more than the text of the evidence actually supports.

Context

The surrounding information needed to understand what evidence or an argument actually means.

Spin

A debater's explanation of how evidence should be interpreted and applied to the round.

Risk of an Argument

The judge's estimate of how likely it is that an argument is true or its impact will occur.

Terminal Defense

Defense strong enough to reduce the risk of an opponent's argument to essentially zero.

Comparative Argument

An argument that directly explains why one option, impact, or piece of evidence is better or more important than another.