87 terms, from the parts of an argument to the techniques used in a live round. Follow a chapter link to see a concept in context.
87 terms in the glossary
Inference to the best explanation. Given observed facts, what explanation best accounts for them? Unlike deduction (certainty) or induction (probability), abduction asks which theory most plausibly explains the evidence.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningAttacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. A logical fallacy when used to dismiss arguments, but can be relevant when credibility is genuinely at issue.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesReasoning offered without a quoted source. An analytic still needs sound premises; a calculation is only as useful as the figures and assumptions behind it.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureA way to examine a case: its claim, supporting evidence, the warrant connecting evidence to claim, and the impact of the conclusion.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureProof from reasoning alone, needing no external evidence — definitions, logic, arithmetic. "A square has four sides" needs no citation. Contrast with factual and opinion proof.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureArguing something is good because it is "natural" (or bad because "unnatural"). A fallacy — naturalness does not determine value; plenty of natural things harm and unnatural things help.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesA possible response in which a correction appears to strengthen an existing belief. Do not assume this happens whenever someone resists new evidence; ask what concern remains unanswered.
Chapter 2: Psychology of BeliefA teaching model for distinguishing a stated opinion from the values or identity it may connect to. It is a prompt for questions, not a way to diagnose another person.
Chapter 2: Psychology of BeliefThe obligation to support a claim. Both sides must support their own assertions; a resolution or format may give one side a specific burden to justify a proposed change.
Chapter 5: Choosing BattlesImproperly demanding your opponent disprove your claim instead of proving it yourself. The burden of proof sits with whoever asserts; "prove me wrong" is not an argument.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesReferring to an earlier point so listeners can follow how the debate has developed. A callback can connect evidence, a concession, or a remaining disagreement to your close.
Chapter 10: Language & FramingAcknowledging a point the other side has established. A fair concession narrows the disagreement and can make your remaining case clearer.
Chapter 5: Choosing BattlesAn alternative proposal offered to solve the same problem as an opponent's plan, but through different means and with additional benefits (net benefits). Counterplans concede the problem exists but argue for a better solution. The debate then shifts to which solution is superior.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentAn argument that challenges the underlying assumptions of an opponent's position — their framework, language, or worldview — rather than their specific claims. Built from four parts: the criticism itself, the links to the opponent's argument, the implications if the assumption goes unchallenged, and an alternative way of thinking.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentA speech that builds a side's case: it states the main claims, explains their reasoning and evidence, and proposes how the sides should be compared. Preset SuperDebate rounds begin with constructive speeches.
Chapter 25: First Debate PlaybookThe questioning period right after a constructive speech. The other side asks about your terms, evidence and assumptions to set up the arguments they will make later. In cross-ex you set up arguments; you make them in your next speech. Preset SuperDebate schedules include cross-examination; custom schedules can vary.
Chapter 25: First Debate PlaybookThe assertion you are trying to prove — the point of an argument. On its own a claim is just an opinion; it becomes an argument only once a reason (warrant) and evidence support it.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureAn argument whose conclusion is hidden in its premises — it assumes what it is trying to prove. "It is true because it says so" restates the claim rather than supporting it.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesThe discomfort of holding two conflicting beliefs, or a belief that clashes with new evidence. People often resolve it by rejecting the evidence rather than updating the belief — which is why facts alone rarely change minds.
Chapter 2: Psychology of BeliefReasoning in which the conclusion follows necessarily if the premises are true and the logical form is valid. Test both the premises and the inference.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningA direct challenge to the truth of a claim. Give a reason or evidence for the challenge rather than saying only “that is not true.”
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentIn policy debate, an argument that a proposal creates a significant harm. It usually explains the current situation, how the proposal changes it, the causal chain, and the impact. Each step needs support.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentA competitive-debate way to describe what each side must defend. Exact burdens depend on the resolution and the rules of the event.
Chapter 20: Weighing ClaimsThe question that most affects how a judge or audience should decide the debate. Identify it from the arguments and evidence, rather than declaring a single point an automatic win.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyAs a stock issue: does the proposal create new harms that outweigh its benefits? One of the five questions used to test a proposal. (See Disadvantage for the structured offensive version with uniqueness, link, and impact.)
Chapter 20: Weighing ClaimsA way to make responses easy to follow: identify the claim, state your answer, explain your reasoning and evidence, and say why the answer matters.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentThe persuasive appeal based on the speaker's credibility. Aristotle's three components: practical wisdom (competence), virtue (character), and goodwill (caring about the audience).
Chapter 13: Ethos & CredibilityFacts, data, examples, or testimony used to support a claim. Strong evidence is relevant and traceable to a source whose method and limits you can explain.
Chapter 11: Research & EvidencePresenting only two options when more exist. "You're either with us or against us" ignores nuanced positions. Attack by naming the hidden alternatives.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesThe convention that debates should focus on whether a proposal should be adopted, not whether it will be. Fiat assumes implementation so debaters can focus on the merits rather than political feasibility. A convention from competitive policy debate, not part of SuperDebate's Standard format.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentThe running mental map of a debate—tracking what arguments have been made, what's been responded to, and what's dropped. Mastering flow prevents getting lost in complex exchanges.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyWinning by external declaration—a judge's decision, an audience vote, or a decision-maker's approval. One of three victory types.
Chapter 1: What Winning MeansThe way a question is presented, including which consequences and standards receive attention. A useful frame makes relevant considerations visible.
Chapter 5: Choosing BattlesProof grounded in verifiable evidence — data, studies, documented events. The strongest proof type when the facts are sound and relevant. Contrast with analytic and opinion proof.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureOverwhelming opponents with a rapid-fire barrage of arguments, regardless of accuracy. Named after creationist Duane Gish. Counter by selective engagement, not exhaustive response.
Chapter 16: Difficult OpponentsThe "so what?" of an argument—why it matters. Strong impacts connect to values, consequences, or stakes that your audience cares about.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureWhy a problem persists under the current system and why it cannot be solved without the proposed change. Effective inherency arguments identify structural barriers—laws, incentives, institutional inertia—that prevent the status quo from self-correcting.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentReasoning from specific observations to general principles. Provides probability, not certainty. "Every X we've seen has Y, so X probably has Y in general."
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningProcessing information in ways that protect one's group identity. When a belief is tied to who someone is, attacking the belief feels like attacking them — so they defend it harder.
Chapter 2: Psychology of BeliefThe middle step of a disadvantage chain: it connects the initial link to the final impact, explaining HOW the first effect produces the larger consequence. Break it and the impact no longer follows.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentTo attack the credibility of a source or piece of evidence — showing the study is flawed, biased, outdated, or misrepresented — rather than the claim itself. Legitimate when the source genuinely fails; distinct from ad hominem.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentThe claim or assumption on which much of a case depends. Testing it can be more useful than responding to several minor points.
Chapter 5: Choosing BattlesThe persuasive appeal based on logic and reasoning. Clear structure, valid inferences, and sound premises make arguments intellectually compelling.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningThe connection between your opponent's proposal and a consequence — the claim that their plan actually triggers the chain you describe. "No link" (it does not cause that) is the most common, decisive response.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentChanging the standard of proof once it has been met — demanding ever more evidence so nothing ever satisfies. A sign of bad faith, not genuine skepticism.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesReducing the force of an argument without defeating it outright — showing an impact is smaller, less likely, or slower than claimed. Often enough to win on weighing even when you cannot refute the point entirely.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentTwo consecutive opposing speeches that create enormous pressure on the responding side. The key rule: the two speeches must cover different arguments with no duplication. A term from competitive policy debate, not part of SuperDebate's Standard format.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyThe advantage a counterplan offers beyond solving the same problem as the original proposal. Net benefits are what make a counterplan competitive — they give the judge a reason to prefer the alternative over the original plan.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentArguing that even if both sides' points are true, yours matter more. "Yes, but..." Compare magnitude, probability, and timeframe to establish which arguments should dominate.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentProof resting on judgment or values rather than fact or pure logic — expert opinion, shared principles, intuition. Weakest alone; strongest when the audience already holds the underlying value.
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureTo win the comparison while conceding ground — your impact matters more on magnitude, probability, or timeframe. The core move of the weighing war: not "I am right and you are wrong" but "mine counts for more."
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentThe persuasive appeal based on emotion. Hope, fear, anger, and pride can motivate action where logic alone fails. Ethical use amplifies truth; manipulation distorts it.
Chapter 14: Pathos & EmotionA test of competition arguing that both a proposal and a counterplan (or critique alternative) can be done simultaneously. If both can coexist, the counterplan is not a reason to reject the original proposal. The most common and often most effective response to counterplans.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentHelping someone reconsider a view or see an issue more clearly. In many conversations, this happens gradually rather than during the exchange itself.
Chapter 1: What Winning MeansA defensive technique that redirects an attack toward your strength. Absorb the attack, acknowledge what's valid, then transition to your strongest ground.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentAddressing an expected objection before the other side raises it. Use it for a likely, important concern; an unlikely objection may distract from your case.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentA starting preference for the current approach in some debate formats. The side proposing change may need to justify it, but both sides still have to support their claims. The resolution and event rules determine the exact burden.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentA case that presents the elements required by its debate format before the other side responds. Which elements are required depends on the format and resolution.
Chapter 20: Weighing ClaimsInterpreting the other side fairly and checking that you understood its strongest reasonable claim before answering it.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningA pre-mapped sequence of questions and anticipated answers designed to guide cross-examination toward a specific concession or contradiction. Each branch accounts for different possible responses, ensuring you end up somewhere useful regardless of what your opponent says.
Chapter 4: Art of ListeningChanging the interpretive lens through which an argument is seen. "This isn't about X, it's really about Y." Powerful defense that can turn attacks into advantages.
Chapter 9: Defend an ArgumentA brief preview given before each speech announcing which arguments will be covered and in what order. Road maps help the judge organize their flow and ensure they track your arguments correctly. Always road-map before constructive and rebuttal speeches.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyEmerging from a debate with reputation enhanced, relationships intact, and position strengthened for future exchanges. Often more valuable than formal victory.
Chapter 1: What Winning MeansA speaking pattern that groups points into three parts. Use it when three distinct points improve clarity, rather than forcing every argument into the same shape.
Chapter 10: Language & FramingA speech that answers the other side's strongest arguments and compares the remaining issues. A preset SuperDebate round ends with rebuttal speeches; custom schedules may vary.
Chapter 25: First Debate PlaybookThe "because" behind a claim — the logic connecting your evidence to your conclusion. Close kin to the warrant: the reason is what you would say after the word "because."
Chapter 3: Argument ArchitectureAn argument is sound when its logic is valid AND its premises are actually true. Valid but unsound arguments can be attacked by challenging premises.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningThe initial, structured presentation of an argument — the complete package including all required components. A disadvantage shell contains uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts. A topicality shell contains definition, violation, standards, and voters. Building clean shells makes arguments easier for judges to follow.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentVerbally marking where you are in your speech: "My second response to their disadvantage..." Signposting prevents your arguments from blurring together and helps the judge track each point on their flow. Essential for organized, winning speeches.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyWhether a proposed plan can actually solve the problem it claims to address. Attacking solvency means arguing that even if the problem is real, the proposed solution won't fix it—due to alternate causes, implementation barriers, or flawed mechanisms.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentConstructing the strongest possible version of your opponent's argument—the opposite of strawmanning. Essential for genuine understanding and meaningful rebuttal.
Chapter 6: Preparation MatrixThe five fundamental questions used in competitive policy debate: Topicality (does the plan fit the topic?), Significance (is the problem big enough?), Inherency (why can't the current system solve it?), Solvency (can the plan fix it?), and Disadvantages (does the plan create worse problems?). Useful analytical lenses, but not how a SuperDebate round is scored — SuperDebate judges score four criteria (argument, evidence, clarity, persuasion); see /faq/debate-format.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentThe current state of affairs. A side may defend it, propose a change, or offer a different change; the resolution determines what each side must establish.
Chapter 20: Weighing ClaimsMisrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. A logical fallacy that damages credibility when detected.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesSuperDebate's single, flexible format: two sides (1v1 up to 5v5, even asymmetric), a configurable length (Quick ~18 min to In-Depth 60+ min), and three speech types per round — constructive, cross-examination, and rebuttal. Trained judges score each side 1–5 on four criteria — argument, evidence, clarity, and persuasion — and audiences can also vote on the winner. It is the only format SuperDebate runs.
Chapter 25: First Debate PlaybookArguing that one step inevitably leads to an extreme outcome. A fallacy when the intermediate links are merely asserted — but a valid argument when each step in the chain is actually established.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesAs a stock issue: is the problem big enough to warrant action? A proposal that solves only a trivial problem fails on significance even if everything else holds.
Chapter 20: Weighing ClaimsAn argument that is both valid AND has true premises. Validity alone is not enough — a valid argument from false premises proves nothing. Soundness is the goal.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningThe pace and rhythm of an exchange. Slow down to examine a consequential claim; move briskly through material that does not need extended treatment.
Chapter 7: Real-Time StrategyA challenge arguing that an opponent's proposal falls outside the scope of the debate topic. In structured debate, topicality requires four steps: defining the relevant term, showing a violation, providing standards for why your definition is preferable, and explaining why this should be a decisive issue.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentConverting your opponent's argument into support for your position. "Not only is that wrong, but the opposite is true, and here's why that helps my case."
Chapter 8: Challenge an Argument"You too" — deflecting a criticism by noting the critic is guilty of the same thing. A fallacy: someone's hypocrisy does not make their argument wrong.
Chapter 12: Logical FallaciesThe first link of a disadvantage chain: proof the harm is not already happening in the status quo, so the opponent's plan is what triggers it. Without uniqueness, the harm cannot be pinned on their proposal.
Chapter 8: Challenge an ArgumentAn argument is valid when the conclusion follows logically from the premises—IF the premises were true, the conclusion would be true. Validity doesn't guarantee truth.
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningAn argument whose conclusion follows logically from its premises — IF the premises are true, the conclusion must be. Validity is about structure only; a valid argument can still be false if a premise is wrong (see Sound).
Chapter 15: Logos & ReasoningThe reasoning that explains why a piece of evidence supports a claim. A warrant can be stated aloud or left as an assumption for listeners to test.
Chapter 3: Argument Architecture