Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) is a formal fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion and one or two negative premises. No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly. The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things ...
The Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) is the second rebuttal speech given by the affirmative, and the eighth and final speech in the round. The 2AR generally only answers the arguments made by the 2NR , going to other flows only when the affirmative believes the negative has made a strategic blunder on that piece of paper.
Affirming the consequent is the action of taking a true statement and invalidly concluding its converse . The name affirming the consequent derives from using the consequent, Q, of , to conclude the antecedent P. This fallacy can be summarized formally as or, alternatively, . [ 5]
In American politics, the response to the State of the Union address is a rebuttal speech, often brief, delivered by a representative (or representatives) of an opposition party following a presidential State of the Union address. When the president is a Democrat, the rebuttal is typically given by a Republican, and vice versa.
Lincoln–Douglas debate format. Lincoln–Douglas debate (commonly abbreviated as LD Debate, or simply LD) is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and ...
Reaffirmation agreement. A reaffirmation agreement in United States bankruptcy law refers to an agreement made between a creditor and the debtor that waives discharge of a debt that would otherwise be discharged in the pending bankruptcy proceeding. A properly executed, timely filed reaffirmation agreement modifies the discharge such that it is ...
A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each party's counsel reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence introduced at ...
Preparation time. In policy debate, preparation time ( prep time) is the amount of time given to each team to prepare for their speeches. Prep time may be taken at any time in any interval. Another form of prep time is known as alternate-use time. Alternate use time replaces preparation time and cross-examination.