52-408: The initials ISN can stand for: Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation , in the U.S. Department of State Intel Software Network International Relations and Security Network International Socialist Network International Society for Neurochemistry International Society of Nephrology International Suppliers Network ,
104-526: A boost to the Significance stock issue. An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory. A Negative strategy that does not give direct clash to the Affirmative plan argues against the resolution's hidden harms without arguing against the plan, the unmasking harms strategy that helps
156-419: A critique of the state declaring that the purported increase in state power that the plan creates is bad because it unduly exercises power and forces citizens into doing things that they would not choose to do otherwise might be impact turned by first mitigating the harm the state does and then saying that other things the state does — such as safeguarding domestic tranquility — are good. Inherency
208-449: A negative team might read a disadvantage saying that the plan will collapse the economy, and that economic collapse causes nuclear war. An affirmative would double turn the disadvantage by saying that actually, the plan would prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse is crucial to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, the affirmative is now arguing that the plan will cause nuclear war. While either of these arguments alone turns
260-431: A net benefit the plan does not have, giving the judge a reason to vote for the team reading it rather than the team with the original proposal. Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for
312-407: A non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a "Stocks Issues" judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss. In doctrinal disputes, Inherency is only a nonissue when there
364-409: A reference to real life to understand the sophisticated arguments in a policy debate round. Fiat ( Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action." Derived from the word should in the resolution , it means that
416-664: A vendor tracking system Internment Serial Number for US prisoners during conflicts Irish Socialist Network Israel Start-Up Nation ITAD Subscriber Numbers for VoIP PBX Nicaraguan Sign Language (Spanish: Idioma de Señas de Nicaragua ) Sloulin Field International Airport , a defunct airport in North Dakota with the IATA code "ISN" See also [ edit ] International Standard Number (disambiguation) Topics referred to by
468-425: A vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly. The ballot is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows
520-585: Is a glossary of policy debate terms . In policy debate (also called cross-examination debate in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the Affirmative is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs
572-405: Is a stock issue in policy debate that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo . There are four main types of inherency: Despite the classification of these four as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become
SECTION 10
#1732772671181624-443: Is a process argument, are rarely distinguishable from counter-resolutions and nontopicality and are therefore frowned upon by judges: Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo . These problems are cited as actual (occurring presently outside the activity of the debate round in the status quo). Harms are different from threats, which are potential harms (not currently occurring in
676-440: Is blue, vote affirmative" is an argument that most judges would believe does not need to be answered. Debaters sometimes use the "dropped egg" argument to refer to arguments dropped by the opposing team, stating that "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg. Once an egg is dropped, it cannot be fixed (or whole) again. Therefore, you should disregard their argument..." etc. This argument is optimal for lay, or parent, judges who need
728-409: Is consent" or "Silence is consensus".) Debaters tend to use this as a general rule while evaluating a debate round. If a team says nothing against an argument, then because 'silence is compliance', they must agree to whatever the argument was. An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. Generally, in
780-700: Is considered feasible. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that
832-510: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation The Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation ( ISN ) is a bureau within the United States Department of State responsible for managing a broad range of nonproliferation and counterproliferation functions. The bureau leads U.S. efforts to prevent
884-418: Is different from policy debate. "Intrinsic means" – are the same means as the status quo without having to justify discovery or extraordinary support of those means. For example, if the plan's agency is C.I.A. , there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about classification methods and clearances. Significance can be argued that capturing the status quo's intrinsic means gives a Solvency boost without
936-413: Is in power and their party affiliation, it matters that whosoever is in power already can benefit from the plan, if that is the argument. Usually, Affirmative plans are not about re-electing officials but are honed toward nonelected groups and other countries who are beneficiaries of the plan. In policy debate, fiating the plan is almost always granted without argument, to help debaters and judges evaluate
988-475: Is organizational consensus. Policy debate ensues, of the academic and nonacademic varieties, in re-evaluating or "rescuing" Inherency. For example, the Status Quo Inherency is used in academic debate to scope resolutions, affirmative plans, and the types of evidence in a formal academic debate. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, as opposed to policy debate, there is no need to "rescue Inherency", because
1040-702: The Proliferation Security Initiative . The bureau also coordinates the implementation of international treaties and arrangements. It seeks to work with international organizations such as the United Nations , the G7 , NATO , and the International Atomic Energy Agency to reduce and eliminate threats posed by weapons of mass destruction, and to support foreign partners in their efforts. In addition to
1092-520: The United States federal government in their plan text . On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect. Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making. In debate, judges consider or score
SECTION 20
#17327726711811144-489: The burden of proof , which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The Negative side , in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to
1196-672: The first affirmative rebuttal , the speaker is required to answer all arguments made so far by the negative team. This is because if the affirmative chooses to respond to the arguments in the second affirmative rebuttal , it reaffirms affirmative ground and strength because the affirmative gets the last speech, leaving the negative with no way to refute any argument made. Many debaters refer to dropped arguments as "conceded," "unanswered," or "unrefuted" or "stands in good stead". Some judges will not evaluate some arguments, even when they are dropped, such as arguments labeled "voting issues" but which are unsupported by warrants. For example, "the sky
1248-425: The 118th Congress, Senate Bill 361, "Pistol Brace Protection Act" will be passed instead due to the fact that the mandate doesn't specify which Congress the Affirmative team is referring to. This causes the Affirmative team to more than likely become untopical and have a plan nowhere remotely related to the intention. It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. For example,
1300-422: The Affirmative team's plan text includes the wrong bill or a bill from a previous legislature. For example, a team may want to pass Senate Bill 361, "A bill to establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and for other purposes." from the 117th Congress. However, if the date the round is taking place happens during
1352-416: The Affirmative with merit, for example, for merely attempting to run a plan on the resolution, which prima facie fulfills the resolution in a particular case, the plan. There are Affirmative positions that support the resolution without running a plan, and they tend to do so on Inherency only, a powerful strategy. Negative Inherency tends to strategize how one ought to vote about the resolution, accepting that
1404-798: The Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control, and in February 2005 he was named the head of the Bureau for Nonproliferation pending the two bureaus' merger. The Bureau's role within the Department of State is to spearhead efforts to promote international consensus on WMD proliferation through bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. The ISN Bureau is also tasked to address WMD proliferation threats posed by non-state actors and terrorist groups by improving physical security, using interdiction and sanctions , and actively participating in
1456-486: The Assistant Secretary, the bureau is overseen by four Deputy Assistant Secretaries, who supervise thirteen unique offices. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation Policy Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Programs The bureau also includes: Actor (policy debate) This
1508-418: The Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Negative block". In policy debate , an agent counterplan is a counterplan that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent. For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." This would solve the original proposal with
1560-462: The agency, such as Congress, are sincere and diligent civil servants who do not quibble over the plan as any part of their regular duties, the presumption of "perfect obedience for the plan's enactment". However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution. There are different theories regarding presumption of fiat: "Normal means" – going through
1612-474: The crux of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment of a given plan , thus allowing an affirmative team to proceed with proposing a plan. An example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of United Nations peacekeeping may help to render the United States more multilateral . Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from
ISN - Misplaced Pages Continue
1664-402: The debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted. Because of the presumption of fiat, enactment is considered the same as enforcement, which is quite different from merely ratification or adoption of the resolution. Presumption grants that
1716-478: The debate round. If something has already been done, the outcome is known, regardless whether the phenomenon of the results still exist in the status quo or has somehow returned. Likewise, arguments by the Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the Affirmative either. For example, in-round, if in Year A
1768-430: The debate, and ultimately vote for the winner of the debate round on a ballot. The purpose of the ballot is what the judge 's vote stands for or is intended to affirm. For example, a team might say "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever saves more lives in third world countries". The opposing team might say "role is irrelevant and the debate rewards the best arguments, not the simulations". The difference between
1820-416: The destabilization that would result in other harms or the same status quo harms. Intrinsic means grants justification of status quo capabilities but none of its inherency vis-a-vis the resolution. Fiat is not taken for granted but is granted to end political discourse, palace intrigue, vote-getting in election politicking, identity politicking, and promote academic debate on policy matters while disregarding
1872-433: The disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would cause nuclear war. In policy debate , a drop refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate. "Silence is compliance." (Sometimes, "Silence
1924-399: The exact partisan composition needed to implement a plan. For example, both Affirmative and Negative teams can cite political double-whammies or backlash as disadvantages : if United States troops are sent to a foreign country, the majority political party that was pro-deployment will not be re-elected and cannot sustain their military objectives, the quagmire argument. It does not matter who
1976-479: The future). Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project? An impact turn requires impact calculus , that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons why nuclear war is bad. Very often, kritiks are subject to impact turns on account of their Grounds missed opportunities, sometimes also their nebulous impacts;
2028-473: The material with great depth and breadth. Those debaters in formal, organized debate, get speaker awards based on judges' opinions of the speakers' performances. In policy debate , constructive speeches are the first four speeches of a debate round. Constructive speeches are each followed by a 3-minute cross-examination period. In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long; in college, they are 9 minutes. In general, constructive arguments are
2080-509: The merits of a plan as though the plan happens. From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides. Fiat almost always does not have to be debated in policy debate but should be taught by coaches and understood by debaters for what they are doing in the activity of academic policy debate. Note that these types of arguments about fiat, that incorrectly assumes fiat
2132-409: The negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of the 1AC offense ), they are a key component in many negative strategies. Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond
ISN - Misplaced Pages Continue
2184-428: The only time that a team can make new arguments. The last four speeches of the debate are reserved for refutations of arguments already made. In current policy debate, the " first affirmative constructive " (1AC) is used to present the " plan ". Whether all new " off-case arguments " must be presented in the " first negative constructive " is a point of contention. In policy debate, a critical flaw refers to when
2236-444: The reasons why supporting revolutions is a winning advantage is still difficult to thwart in one's advocacy that does not include revolution. An interlocutor is, generically, to whom one speaks. In debate an interlocutor is one of the teams on the debate circuit, as well the judges and coaches. The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them. Within
2288-471: The resolution says "substantially change" and many teams have already debated that, and in Year B the resolution says "substantially increase", on the same topic, the winning debates in Year A already have many winning arguments that can be presented in Year B. Another example, on-topic, if in Year A many winning teams have supported revolution (revolutions are less bloody than nuclear war), but in Year B there are teams running counterarguments against revolution,
2340-403: The same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team. "Infinite" or "durable fiat" – the degree to which an ideal, or "fiated", action
2392-450: The same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title ISN . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISN&oldid=1254203548 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Articles containing Spanish-language text Short description
2444-462: The spread of weapons of mass destruction ( nuclear , chemical , and biological weapons), their delivery systems , advanced conventional weapons , and related materials, technologies, and expertise. It was created on September 13, 2005, when the Bureau of Arms Control and the Bureau of Nonproliferation were merged. Stephen G. Rademaker was the first Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation . He had been
2496-488: The status quo is not required for the debate. The classical form of Inherency belongs to the Negative as Status Quo Inherency, which succinctly states that "there is unknown danger in change". Argumentation Inherency, a stock issue, does not refer so much to plans and counterplans in policy debate or the resolution but to fairness in competitive debate. Affirmative Inherency does not have to explicitly overcome apathy or even be mentioned, because Argumentation Inherency endows
2548-493: The status quo, but with the possibility of occurring in the future). In the case of potential harms, the policy offered by the affirmative functions as a preventive measure or "sure deterrence". As is so often the case in academic debate, the bigger the harms, the bigger the impacts. For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets. It has also been argued that "small things can have big impacts", giving
2600-420: The terms of the debate is fair but that the resolution ought to be defeated. Just as stock issue debate does not require the Affirmative to run a plan, stock issue debate does not require the Negative to completely defeat the Affirmative but merely negate the resolution on lack of justifiability, or Negative Justification. In policy debate, failing Historical Inherency is a sure way for the Affirmative to not win
2652-469: The topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state. If a plan were to have the U.S. send humanitarian aid to Sudan, then the policy group, the folks who are expected to implement the plan, would be the United States federal government. Many times, institutional groups are subdivided into more specific "agents". The most common agents include
SECTION 50
#17327726711812704-420: The underprepared Negative team who do not have much experience with the Affirmative plan's details. This strategy is useful in the early rounds of a debate tournament. Example : If the negative argued the plan would cause nuclear war, which is bad so the affirmative could impact turn by arguing that nuclear war is an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in
#180819