In the competition, one side (called the affirmative) must support the resolution, and the other side (called the negative) must show that the action does not conform to the principle or that the affirmative has not shown how it does so (there are different schools of thought as to the negative's burden).
While the amount of prep time is at the tournament's discretion, the NSDA advocated three minutes until midway through the 2006–2007 season, when it decided on four.
The typical (though not mandated) case is divided into a criterium, which outlines the conditions for discussing the resolution, and contentions, which are the arguments.
For example, a negative case for the resolution "Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment" could have a value of justice, a value criterion of deterring crime, and then evidence-supported contentions that demonstrate that the death penalty uniquely fails as a deterrent.
An affirmative case could have a value of justice, a criterion of respecting human life, and contentions giving evidence based arguments that all methods of execution are inhumane.
The debaters would then argue whether crime deterrence or adherence to the principle of essentialist humanity is more effective at encouraging justice based on the evidence in their cases.
A counterplan (also called a CP) allows the negative side to defend an advocacy separate from the status quo.
Solvency deficits and perms explained above, "links to the net benefit" simply means that the counterplan leads to the reason that it claims is better than the plan, refutation is independent reason(s) why the counterplan is bad, and theory is explanations of comprehending the value of the debate.
This kritik would further argue that an anthropocentric mindset would justify major harms, which, in order to avoid, would require the win go to the side presenting the criticism.
The discourse kritik argues that the effects of an action one's opponent has taken during or in relation to the round should outweigh consideration of the resolution.
Another example is if the opponent uses a slur (such as a derogatory term for homosexuals) in or out of the round, which opens the way to a "bad discourse" kritik.
A kritik is generally composed of four parts: the role of the ballot, link, impact, and alternative.
Shells include arguments such as that of disclosure theory and have become increasing popular in the high school circuits.
A theory shell most often uses fairness and education to weigh the round, but many other standards and values are used when debating on them.
These include the "a priori" or "prima facie" argument which attempt to demonstrate that the resolution is true/false outside of the typical syllogistic model, most commonly by collapsing it into a tautology or presenting some reason why it's nonsensical.
"Theory" debate, which says that an opponent's argument or style of argumentation (e.g. talking too fast or interpreting the resolution in a certain way) is unfair or noneducational and explains why fairness or educational considerations supersedes the resolutional evaluation, has also proliferated.
Like atypical cases, the merit of these types of arguments is heatedly contested, although both are common on the national circuit.
Comments are also written on the ballot, which is the document that the judge writes their decision on, as well as the speaker points awarded to each debater.
Another option is to use lay judges for the rounds, but offer them a brief training session or tutorial beforehand to prepare and inform them about the nature of the debate.
The debaters with the best win–loss record from this set of rounds then advance (called "breaking" or "clearing") to a single-elimination stage of "outrounds" that determines the eventual champion.
Hundreds of such tournaments are held each weekend at high schools throughout the United States during the debate season.
National circuit tournaments are very large events that typically draw 120-200 varsity LD competitors, in addition to LDers in the novice and jv divisions, policy debaters, public forum debaters, speech participants, judges, coaches, etc.
National circuit debate is generally characterized by its extremely fast manner of speaking (300 wpm is not considered an uncommon speed to read a case at), use of jargon, and emphasis on strength/depth of argumentation rather than rhetoric.
The unofficial national circuit championship is the Tournament of Champions (LD) (TOC) held at the University of Kentucky.
To be eligible for the TOC, debaters must collect at least two bids at various designated tournaments held throughout the year.
(They cannot be considered qualifying tournaments because they technically exist independent of TOC authority and are significant in their own right.)
These tournaments are granted a certain number of bids by the director of the TOC (Prof. Angela Reed) with the input of her advisory committee that debaters receive upon reaching a certain level in the elimination rounds.
For example, the Dowling Catholic Paradigm held at Dowling Catholic High School in West Des Moines, Iowa is a medium-sized tournament attended by debaters of all experience levels mostly from the Midwest, and therefore receives four bids, awarded to the debaters who reach the semifinal round of the tournament.
[5] Ten possible resolutions for the upcoming year are chosen by a wording committee and released at the NSDA National Tournament.
Each coach in the country receives a ballot with a copy of the official magazine of the NSDA, the Rostrum, and votes for a topic for each two-month slot.