| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract
|
政策性辩论（Policy debate），是一种特定形式的辩论比赛，两支队伍分为正、 … 政策性辩论（Policy debate），是一种特定形式的辩论比赛，两支队伍分为正、反方，分别支持或反对某项特定的政策变化。此类政策实施的主体一般为美国联邦政府。政策性辩论同样是指「交互质询式」辩论（有时简称Cross-X、CX、Cross-ex、或是C-X），因为每位辩手发表立论之后都必须接受对手的3分钟质询。为符合辩题中涉及的政策，正方必须提出一个符合该政策要求的具体实施计划。 高中层面的政策性辩论活动由许多组织进行资助，其中包括：（NSDA）、（NCFL）、（NCFCA）、Stoa USA，以及其他各地区性组织。 大学层面的政策性辩论一般在（NDT）以及（CEDA）的指导下进行比赛。而单人制的政策性辩论比赛则主要由（NFA）举办。）以及（CEDA）的指导下进行比赛。而单人制的政策性辩论比赛则主要由（NFA）举办。
, Policy debate is an American form of debat … Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of Policy Debate. The main argument being debated during a round of Policy is which team wins a system by which the debate should be evaluated (Framework) and who wins under this framework (gets the ballot). When a team explains why their impacts are "greater" than the opposition's impacts, they utilize the concept of "impact calculus." One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to address a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech where each person constructs the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech were each person tries to rebut (or answer) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to convince the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to convince the judge to vote for a change, while the Negative has to convince the judge that the status quo is better than the hypothetical world in which the Affirmative's plan is implemented. High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including the National Speech and Debate Association, National Association of Urban Debate Leagues, Catholic Forensic League, Stoa USA, and the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of National Debate Tournament (NDT) and the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the National Forensic Association (NFA)) on the collegiate level as well.on (NFA)) on the collegiate level as well.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageExternalLink
|
https://www.tabroom.com/index/index.mhtml/ +
, http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/home.aspx +
, https://web.archive.org/web/20141218010921/http:/nflonline.org/ +
, http://www.forensicstournament.net/ +
, http://www.ncfca.org/ +
, http://www.nfhs.org/speechdebate.aspx +
, http://www.urbandebate.org/ +
, http://www.ncfl.org/ +
, http://www.stoausa.org/home +
, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxCheshier0402.pdf +
, http://ndtceda.com/ +
, https://www.delegatepal.com/ +
, http://www.debateleaders.org/ +
, http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ +
, http://cedadebate.org/ +
, https://web.archive.org/web/20041025082208/http:/www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/ +
, https://archive.org/details/basicdebate0000phil +
, https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231602/http:/debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/GlassMar%2700.pdf +
, http://debate.uvm.edu/debatebib.html +
, https://web.archive.org/web/20100929125322/http:/www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/PolicyDebate +
, http://debatecoaches.org/ +
, https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010138/http:/www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Coach1104Glass +
, https://archive.org/details/crossx00mill +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageID
|
447492
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageLength
|
47061
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageRevisionID
|
1122073480
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageWikiLink
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Racism +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Deconstructionist +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_Supreme_Court +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Catholic_Forensic_League +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Prep_time +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plan_inclusive_counterplan +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Whitman_College +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Nuclear_warfare +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/B:Policy_Debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Debate_Tournament +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Negative_%28policy_debate%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Debate_types +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Structure_of_policy_debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Affirmative_%28policy_debate%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/1AC +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Rebuttal_speech +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Constructive_speech +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Policy_debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Urban_debate_league +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Boston_College +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/University_of_Idaho +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Speech_and_Debate_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Human_extinction +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Georgetown_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Patriarchy +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Wake_Forest_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Northwestern_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Inter-Collegiate_policy_debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Duke_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Glossary_of_policy_debate_terms +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Texas_Forensic_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cross_Examination_Debate_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Forensic_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Disadvantage +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Orientalism +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/University_of_Kentucky +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Argument +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tabula_rasa +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Biopower +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Association_of_Urban_Debate_Leagues +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Latin +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Christian_Forensics_and_Communications_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Stoa_USA +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kritik +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Statism +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Forensic_League +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Willamette_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Washington_State_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Catholic_Forensic_League +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Topicality_%28policy_debate%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Resolution_%28policy_debate%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Anthropocentrism +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tournament_of_Champions_%28debate%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Stock_issues +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/American_Debate_Association +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Counterplan +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cross-examination +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Resolved_%28film%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Wichita_State_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/List_of_policy_debaters +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Unreferenced_section +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:More_footnotes +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Policy_Debate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Main +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Reflist +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:For +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Cite_book +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:More_citations_needed +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Short_description +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Multiple_issues +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Cleanup +
|
| http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Debate_types +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Policy_debate +
|
| http://purl.org/linguistics/gold/hypernym
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Form +
|
| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate?oldid=1122073480&ns=0 +
|
| http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate +
|
| owl:sameAs |
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Policy_debate +
, http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.029krv +
, http://zh.dbpedia.org/resource/%E6%94%BF%E7%AD%96%E6%80%A7%E8%BE%A9%E8%AE%BA +
, http://simple.dbpedia.org/resource/Policy_debate +
, http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q649716 +
, https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4q1x7 +
|
| rdfs:comment |
政策性辩论（Policy debate），是一种特定形式的辩论比赛，两支队伍分为正、 … 政策性辩论（Policy debate），是一种特定形式的辩论比赛，两支队伍分为正、反方，分别支持或反对某项特定的政策变化。此类政策实施的主体一般为美国联邦政府。政策性辩论同样是指「交互质询式」辩论（有时简称Cross-X、CX、Cross-ex、或是C-X），因为每位辩手发表立论之后都必须接受对手的3分钟质询。为符合辩题中涉及的政策，正方必须提出一个符合该政策要求的具体实施计划。 高中层面的政策性辩论活动由许多组织进行资助，其中包括：（NSDA）、（NCFL）、（NCFCA）、Stoa USA，以及其他各地区性组织。 大学层面的政策性辩论一般在（NDT）以及（CEDA）的指导下进行比赛。而单人制的政策性辩论比赛则主要由（NFA）举办。）以及（CEDA）的指导下进行比赛。而单人制的政策性辩论比赛则主要由（NFA）举办。
, Policy debate is an American form of debat … Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Evidence presentation is a crucial part of Policy Debate. The main argument being debated during a round of Policy is which team wins a system by which the debate should be evaluated (Framework) and who wins under this framework (gets the ballot). When a team explains why their impacts are "greater" than the opposition's impacts, they utilize the concept of "impact calculus." One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— am’s job is to argue that the resolution—
|
| rdfs:label |
政策性辩论
, Policy debate
|
