The Debate Glossary

Cutting a card

Formatting a piece of evidence for a debate round.

A “card” is one piece of evidence. To “cut” it, you write a tag (a short claim the evidence proves), add the citation (author, credentials, date, source), and highlight only the words you’ll read aloud. The rest of the paragraph stays for context but isn’t spoken.

Example — Tag: “Economic decline causes war.” + citation + a highlighted excerpt with the reasoning.

Progressive (“prog”) debate

A style using technical arguments from Policy/LD, not just traditional case debate.

“Prog” is an umbrella style, not a single argument. It brings technical or critical arguments — kritiks, theory, topicality, tricks — into rounds (increasingly even in Public Forum). The opposite is “trad” (traditional/lay) debate. Prog arguments often debate debate itself, or reject the resolution entirely.

Kritik (K)

A critique of the assumptions or ideology behind the opponent’s case.

German for “critique.” Instead of answering the opponent’s specific claims, a kritik attacks the underlying assumptions, ideology, or discourse of their case. It usually has a framework (or “role of the ballot”), links (how the case participates in the bad thing), impacts (why that’s bad), and an alternative (“alt”). Common types: Capitalism, Feminism, Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Security/Biopolitics, and more.

Topicality (T)

A procedural argument that the aff doesn’t fit the resolution’s wording.

Topicality argues the affirmative’s plan or advocacy isn’t “topical” — it doesn’t match the words of the resolution. Its structure is Interpretation (a definition of a key term) · Violation (the aff doesn’t meet it) · Standards (why that interpretation is better — limits, ground, fairness, education) · Voters (why it’s a reason to vote). It’s about the resolution’s words, not the topic’s facts.

Theory

A procedural argument about the rules and norms of debate practice.

Theory challenges how debate is being practiced (not the resolution). Examples: disclosure (you must post your case online), paraphrasing bad (read cut cards, not paraphrases), conditionality, spikes, and RVIs. It uses the same shell shape as topicality — interpretation, violation, standards, voters.

Framework

The “role of the ballot” — how the judge should evaluate the round.

Framework is the analytic argument a debater reads to set the lens the judge uses to decide who wins — for example, “the role of the ballot is to vote for the better methodology,” or “fiat is illusory.” It’s the plumbing that tells the judge what matters before the substance is weighed.

Spark

An impact turn: a limited nuclear war is “good” because it prevents a worse one.

Spark argues that a smaller catastrophe now is net-good because it “sparks” disarmament, cooperation, or prevents a larger extinction-level war later. It belongs to the “collapse good” family, alongside de-development (dedev) and degrowth — the idea that the collapse of industrial civilization solves the environment or a bigger threat.

Wipeout

An impact turn: human extinction is “good” or has no downside.

Wipeout argues that human (or all) extinction would be good, or at least not bad — because it ends all suffering, or because life has no value (antinatalism, “death good”). It’s one of the most extreme progressive impact turns.