Argumentation in Varsity

LD Debate
  Claim
 Link
 Warrant
 Impact

Components
Example: If you’re arguing for the current resolution (In the United States,
of an national service ought to be compulsory), this could look like:
 Claim – National service could fix the polarization between different
Argument in groups in America
LD Debate  Link – “National service could”
 Warrant – A diverse selection of youths working together would force
kids with different beliefs to understand each other better.
 Impact – By fixing the polarization between different groups, we are
creating a more cohesive nation that spends more time improving the
country and less time arguing over small differences.
  Inherency: a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo.
The affirmative must explain what exists currently that prevents their
advantages from occurring. If inherency is taken out by the neg, the
affirmative’s points can be turned because they are no longer unique.
 Harms: negative things that happen because of the status quo. The
The 3 Stock affirmative may show existing bad things that happen if they want to bolster
their impact by solving harms in addition to creating advantages.
issues of LD  Solvency: The mechanics of an affirmative case’s plan are given in solvency.
The affirmative shows what harms are solved, or the link to new advantages
are shown. Without solvency, a plan is useless. Thus, the affirmative loses a
debate without solvency, no matter how well it described problems of the
status quo. Long story short, if you don’t fix the harms you showed you
won’t win.
  Turn
an argument that proves an argument the other side has made is in fact support
for one's own side.
 Take-out
Logical proof that an argument is not factually based, or does not hold up to
simple logical testing.
Jargon  Drop
an argument which was not answered by the opposition, and thus was conceded.
Remember, “silence is compliance.”
 Fiat
An argument that prefers the contents of the resolution instead of it’s feasibility.
This is assumed in LD.
 Some issues that are considered stock in policy debate aren’t considered stock
in LD debate.
 Significance: This answers the "why" of debate. All advantages and
disadvantages to the status quo (resulting from inherency) and of the plan
(resulting from solvency) are evaluated under significance.
 Topicality: The affirmative case must affirm the resolution. When the
Other Issues resolution appears vague, the probable intent of the resolution is often
considered and upheld. In modern usage, most paradigms and regions do
not consider topicality to be a "stock issue" per se; instead, it being a
procedural one brought up by the negative.
 Justification: Do the case and the plan justify the resolution? Does the
inherency justify the solvency?
 Say an argument against the following statement that illustrates
that it’s harms aren’t enough justification to warrant a change in the
status quo:

“We ought to legalize marijuana because it’s prohibition harms the

economy.”
Try it:
Say an argument against the following statement that turns the
warrant of the argument:

“Nuclear power should be allowed because the waste produced has

only 3 negative effects that coal doesn’t.”
 The purpose of theory is to combat abuse in debate. Don’t run theory if:
a. your judge explicitly states that they don’t accept theory arguments
b. The theory argument is clearly abusive or weak
When you run a theory argument you are running it as an a priori voting issue.
Theory This means no other argument in the round will be counted, and you’ll lose all
your other offense. In addition, a theory argument will take a good 4 minutes
Arguments to fully develop. This magnitude of time skew can be used to persuade a judge
to vote for you and against abuse, however it means that if you run a theory
argument you’ve got to go all in.

Some theory shells can be found at chsdebate.ga/resources