Jargon Guide

Jargon Guide for TOC 2021

30 Speaker Point Theory: An argument that the judge should give every debater in the round a score of 30.

A Priori: supersedes all other arguments. (Not the ordinary definition, which is “relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.”)

British Parliamentary (BP): The most popular college parliamentary format in the world, which features two Government teams and two Opposition teams. BP debates rarely involve any theory, and do not involve research during prep time.

Clear: Say this aloud if you can’t understand the speaker. (See also Slow)

Collapse: focus on fewer arguments in later speeches.

Conditionality (condo): Whether the Opp can “kick” the counterplan, and revert to defending the status quo, later in the round.

Content Warning. A notice that precedes potentially sensitive content, usually at the beginning of a speech.

Empirics: empirical evidence. Data, statistics.

External link: The link between the plan and the contention. 

All subsequent links are internal links.

Fiat: the norm or rule of debate (depending on whom you ask) that requires debaters and the judge to assume that the plan (or CP) will be implemented, so that they do not debate about whether it would be adopted in the real world. 

“Fiat is durable” means the plan will remain in place once passed.

Framework (FW): The interpretation of the resolution and standards for evaluating the other arguments in the round.

Friv T: Frivolous topicality. (May also refer to frivolous theory.)

Functional Competition: Whether a CP forces a choice between it and the plan as a practical matter. 

Distinguished from Textual Competition, which is where the text of a counterplan forecloses the plan.

Hack: (Noun) A judge who is biased in favor of a certain type of argument, e.g. topicality or a kritik.

(Verb) When a judge adds to a debater’s argument to make it better.

“How many sheets?”: If a judge is asking this, they probably want to put each argument on a separate sheet or paper or electronic sheet. How many distinct main arguments do you plan to make in this speech?

Impact Calculus: Weighing the magnitude and likelihood (and sometimes timeframe and reversibility) of the various impacts presented by both sides. No actual Calculus required.

Independent Voting Issue (IVI): An argument that the judge can vote on separately from the case debate. E.g. “Even if you think we have lost the case debate, you can still vote for us because the other side didn't take any POIs/talked too fast/used problematic language.” There can be overlap between the terms IVI and K, e.g. a “Speed Kritik” is an argument that one team’s delivery speed is a reason to vote against them, which is also an IVI.

Kritik (K): An argument that the judge should decide the round based on something other than the arguments about the merits of the resolution or plan.

Alt: The alternative proposed as part of the K.

Disclosure theory: The idea that a K (or other aspects of a team’s advocacy) should be disclosed (in parli, at the beginning of prep time), so that the other team has a fair opportunity to prepare.

Role Of The Ballot (ROB): An argument about how the judge should decide whom to vote for.

LARP: Live Action Role Play. Typically parli debaters pretending to be policy debaters.

Metatheory: Theory about theory (e.g. the interp can be that a team may not run more than one theory shell).

MG Theory:  Theory first introduced by the MG.

Necessary but Insufficient Burdens (NIBs): The other team must do X to win, but will not necessarily win if they do this.

Performance: presentation of arguments in non-traditional ways, e.g. musically. Often used for a K.

Permutation (Perm): A thought experiment to evaluate whether a counterplan is competitive with the plan, by considering a world in which both the plan and (all or part of) the CP were implemented. (Partial perm=perm part of CP.) This is often framed in terms of whether the CP and Plan are “mutually exclusive” (cannot coexist), but a CP may also be competitive if it would be net beneficial to adopt only the CP rather than the plan and the CP. Sometimes defined as whether the CP is an opportunity cost of the plan.

Plan Inclusive Counterplan (PIC): A CP that overlaps partially (or perhaps entirely) with the plan. Often includes at least one significant difference that makes it nonresolutional (e.g. the resolution says “all” and the CP contains an exception). 

PIC Bad Theory is an argument that Gov should be punished for running a PIC because it takes away too much Gov ground, creates a bad debate, is less educational, etc.

Presumption: Defaulting to one side (usually to the status quo, and therefore Opp) if there is no clear reason to vote for either side. Some teams may argue for Government presumption, however.

Protect the flow: Disregard new arguments in rebuttal even if no POO is called.

Reverse Voting Issue (RVI): An argument that a team should lose because it ran a frivolous or abusive theory argument, thereby being unfair (e.g. by creating a time suck) or by hurting the quality of the overall debate.

Shadow Extension: One team extending an argument in rebuttal that they made in their first speech, but did not mention in their middle speech. 

Signposting. Number your arguments, and refer to both sides’ arguments by their number and tagline (heading).

Slow: Say this aloud if the speaker is talking too fast for you to be able to engage effectively with the content.

Speed K: An argument that a team should lose (or suffer other consequences) because it spoke too fast for the other team to engage effectively with their arguments, and refused to slow down when asked.

Status Quo (SQ or SQUO): The world now.

Tabula Rasa: A blank slate, willing to accept any argument without being affected by the judge’s biases, preconceptions, independent knowledge, or opinions.

Tag Teaming: When one partner is giving a speech, the other addresses the room as well, to suggest an argument, answer a POI or POO, etc.

Tech > Truth: No consistent definition of this is available, “tech” generally refers to a debater’s technical skills, while “truth” usually refers to a judge’s assessment of the validity/quality of an argument. A couple of views of what this means can be found here. A tech>truth judge will accept a dropped argument as true for purposes of the round.

Terminal Solvency Takeouts: Proving that the plan has a 0% chance of solving the problem.

Terminalized Impacts: Variously explained as (1) impacts that cannot be impact turned; (2) impacts that are taken as far as they can go; (3) impacts that have a clear and explicit link to the standard for the round; and (4) human death impacts. 

Theory (T): Arguments about what arguments are acceptable in debate. Sometimes presented in a shell similar to what’s described under Topicality, with Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voting Issue. Some judges may expect theory to be presented in this format. 

Topicality (T): Debate theory about whether the Government’s interpretation or plan is within the scope of the resolution.

Interpretation: the Opposition team’s interpretation of a part (word, phrase, entirety) of the resolution that it argues the Government team has misinterpreted.

Counter-Interpretation: The Government teams’s interpretation of the same text for which the Opp has given an interpretation.

Competing Interpretations: A topicality argument that the judge should choose the better interpretation of the disputed term, even if the Gov’s interpretation is reasonable.

Demonstrated/proven abuse: The violation hurt us in this round.

Potential abuse: If they repeat the violation in another round, it could be abusive

T-shell is a format for topicality arguments

Interpretation - what the word/phrase/resolution actually means

Violation - how the Gov interpreted it instead

Standards/reasons to prefer - Why your interpretation is correct/better

Voting Issue - what the judge should do about it, and why

We Meet: a Government argument that the plan or case satisfies the interpretation that the Opp has proposed (may be argued instead of, or in addition to, a counter-interpretation.)

Trichotomy: Treating fact and value resolutions as distinct from policy. A judge who rejects “trichot” prefers to hear a plan in every round.

Tricks: Arguments that some would find “tricky.”  Sometimes designed to evade clash earlier in the debate but then be blown up when it’s too late for the other side to respond.

Uniqueness: strictly speaking, not unique in the world (other policies might exist that would cause the impact), but unique in the round (the impact happens only on the Gov side, or only on the Opp side). This term is used to mean several different things. Sometimes used to mean “inherency”--the barriers to causing an advantage or disadvantage in the status quo. Or it could refer to the pre-plan status quo itself.

UQ/L/IL/I: Structuring an argument with Uniqueness, (External) link (to plan), Internal links, Impact.

Weighing Mechanism: A standard or criterion for evaluating the other arguments in the round, and understanding which ones to prioritize.

A Note About "This House" Motions/Resolutions/Topics

‘This House’ is a term often used in parli topics on the East Coast, and occasionally in other regions as well. It was originally a reference to the house of Parliament.In the context of a policy topic, “this House” is usually a stand-in for an actor. The debaters can define “this House” in the round as the actor appropriate for the action the resolution is calling for.Example: This House would militarily intervene in Syria.
Here, this House can be “the US federal government,” “the government of Russia” etc.Example: This House, as the People’s Republic of China, would militarily intervene in Syria.
Here, the House is defined in the resolution, so the actor is the Chinese government.In the context of fact/value rounds, “this House” usually means the judge.Example: This House believes that individual privacy should be valued above national security.
Here, “this House” can be defined as the judge at the end of the round, so if the Gov successfully proves that individual privacy is more important than national security, then that’s what the judge will believe.Example: This House regrets the rise of social media.
If “this House” is defined as the judge, then this phrasing is more or less interchangeable with “The rise of social media has done more harm than good.”