The Affirmative

Policy debate is a civilized argument to decide which policy option should be adopted.

About what? The resolution… Resolved: the United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

Just like a game, there are two sides… … thus, two options! And you have to do both!

Affirmative: They Agree

Negative: They Disagree

Affirmative Position: 1AC Plan Text

Negative default position: Status Quo

Building the 1AC

ADVANTAGES of voting affirmative (or DISADVANTAGE of voting negative). Why change? Why do anything? ADVANTAGES of voting affirmative (or DISADVANTAGE of voting negative). First, we have to establish a reason why a judge NEEDS to consider the 1AC. Remember that voting affirmative means voting for a CHANGE - thus, there has to be a reason. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. We will refer to these things as the ADVANTAGES of voting affirmative. BUT, remember that if it is an ADVANTAGE of voting affirmative, it’s also probably a DISADVANTAGE to voting negative.

Constructing Advantages …aka HARMS …tell stories about why the policy option creates advantages. …aff team’s best form of OFFENSE Constructing Advantages More traditional judges/coaches, consider these HARMS of the status quo. These need to tell a very clear story about why adopting this policy option will create these advantages. This an affirmative’s best form of OFFENSE, so it’s important to take “advantage.”

Maximizing Offense What’s worse?!? Stubbing your toe? Amputating your leg? LOOK AT THE IMPACT Go for a big IMPACT: Economic Collapse War Death Extinction Environmental Degradation Or… Moral Obligation – Systemic

Types of Impacts Causal War… Moral Obligation Ethics… Systemic Racism…

Become a Storyteller “Voting affirmative prevents __________ from happening.” OR “Voting negative allows __________ to happen.” EXPLAIN...Don’t assume. You need to prove that the problem will actually occur. “Voting affirmative prevents __________ from happening.” “Voting negative allows __________ to happen.” Then EXPLAIN why this occurring would be terrible or why this not occurring would be great. Don’t assume…EXPLAIN!

Application Where is this from the 1AC you got from me? What “stories” are being told? What are you noticing about the progression of the “story”? It still has parts.

INHERENCY Advantages? Check Why do these problems exist anyway? What’s going on in the Status Quo? It argues that the problem will not get fixed in the status quo, so an affirmative ballot is NECESSARY to solve. We have the problem. We have the proposed solution. We have the proof that it will work. We’re missing one last thing. We need to know WHY this problem exists in the first place. This is called INHERENCY. Other traditional ways to think of this is: what prevents us from currently solving the problem? Why hasn’t it been fixed? It argues that the problem will not get fixed in the status quo, so an affirmative ballot is NECESSARY to solve. This helps you create an additional link in the argument that the status quo is bad. This supercharges your ADVANTAGES offense. It proves that these problems exist, but the status quo will always be INADEQUATE to solve it. This is a necessary argument to preempt an argument that would slam the debate.

PLAN Advantages? Check How do we “get” them? Be Specific But K.I.S.S. Given that the problem exists, how SPECIFICALLY can we solve it. NO - “Increase development of the ocean” Even though this is how the resolution is worded. YES - “Desalinate ocean water.” Could maybe even make it more specific.

SOLVENCY Advantages? Check Plan? Check Does it work? We have the problem. We have the proposed solution. But, now the proof is in the pudding. We have to know that the plan will work. This is called SOLVENCY. Use this to help write your plan text (it makes it easier to prove).

Application Where is this from the 1AC I gave you? Other affirmatives will DEFINITELY need more explanation. Should always try for as much solvency as possible because this is how your 1AC gets its offense. LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS aka, “beating a dead horse”.

Order Whichever makes most logical sense…TELL A STORY. Most normally: Contention 1 - Inherency PLAN TEXT (K.I.S.S.) Contention 2 - Advantages (Harms) Contention 3 - Solvency Potential Application - students need to explain the 1AC in a few (3-5) sentences.

8 Minutes Advocate/Defend Don’t Lose It 8 Minutes Long Remember, this is something that you ADVOCATE, so you have to DEFEND everything! Don’t include anything that you can’t defend. Don’t lose it in the debate round. Always remind the judge about your 1AC (your advocacy).

Risk Assessment

Risk = magnitude X probability. Key Terms Recap: Advantage Disadvantage Magnitude of impact Probability of impact Timeframe of impact Risk = magnitude X probability. If policy debate is about weighing which policy option is more advantageous, we neaed to establish how to analyze these impacts. Risk assessment asks us to look at all of the information and ASSESS which impact has a greater risk. Advantage: Positive things caused by the plan (amount of harm the affirmative is able to solve). Disadvantage: Negative things caused by the plan. Magnitude of impact: Size of the impact! (Often measured in terms of lives saved or lost). Probability of impact: Likelihood of impact. Timeframe of impact: When the impact occurs. Risk = magnitude X probability.

Let’s Practice Give me the answer using risk assessment vocab…use one of the new terms in each of your responses: Why would your Mom be happier to see a friend picking you up in a car than on a motorcycle (knowing that people have died using both types of vehicles)? Why don’t you stay awake at night worrying about human extinction as a result of diseases in Africa? Would you rather trip on the sidewalk or fall off of a 5 story building?

Why would your Mom be happier to see a friend picking you up in a car than on a motorcycle (knowing that people have died using both types of vehicles)? Probability

Why don’t you stay awake at night worrying about human extinction as a result of diseases in Africa? Timeframe

Would you rather trip on the sidewalk or fall off of a 5 story building? Magnitude

Risk of Advantage > Risk of Disadvantage = AFF Risk of Advantage < Risk of Disadvantage = NEG Risk of Advantage > Risk of Disadvantage = AFF Risk of Advantage < Risk of Disadvantage = NEG Finish the sentences using your risk assessment vocabulary: If the plan saves 1 million lives from disease but crashes the US economy and causes global nuclear war… If the plan saves 1 million lives from disease but causes a mild economic recession… If the plan does not solve because the aff dropped a devastating neg solvency argument, but the neg can only prove that the aff causes a tiny disadvantage… If the plan stops extinction but causes global nuclear war… If the plan solves but the neg wins that there is very little harm and there is a decent risk that the plan crashes the economy… If the plan saves 1 million lives but the aff only wins one argument on the DA… (TRICK QUESTION).

Prepare to Have Your Mind Blown Theoretically the Advantage and the Disadvantage occur together. How does the advantage occurring affect the disadvantage? How does the disadvantage occurring affect the advantage? Arguments also interrelate. Debaters who think on relationships between arguments win many more debates than those who do not. Examples: Let’s say that the negative wins that the affirmative causes the US economy to crash. How might that change the implementation of the affirmative plan? Let’s say that the affirmative answers the DA by claiming that nuclear war impacts are over blown and that nations will cooperate rather than fight. How might that be used against them? The point is that aside from just comparing risks you can also point out that the DA turns the case (DA actually prevents the case from solving) or that the case turns the DA (the case is critical to preventing the DA impact).Pointing out these inter-relationships will REALLY impress your judges.

Overviews Presents risk assessment Refer to already read evidence Connects “columns” on your flow Overviews! The most important part of the debate is the flow. Almost all of your speech should be spent on line-by-line refutation. BUT, a brief statement before your line-by-line debate about why can be a gamewinner. Risk of Advantage > Risk of Disadvantage = AFF OR Risk of Advantage < Risk of Disadvantage = NEG? It’ll help you win. It’s important, so it comes first Presents risk assessment Great for extension Refers to already read evidence Keep it important Connects “columns” on your flow

Write an overview that uses your risk assessment vocabulary. Application Pick out one DA and the aff case. Half of the room needs to think like the negative and brainstorm why the DA outweighs the case and the other half should think like the affirmative and argue that the case outweighs the DA. Write an overview that uses your risk assessment vocabulary.

Building the 2AC

First job is to extend. Don’t lose your aff. Second job is to respond. Answer off-case arguments: Topicality, Kritik, Theory, CPs, DAs. Third job is to add. Add-on advantages, new solvency evidence, etc… It’s hard to know how to build a 2AC without learning what the 1NC consists of. The easiest way to approach the 2AC (and subsequent affirmative speeches) is to follow this mantra: extend, respond, add*. (But you won’t really be adding in the 1AR/2AR.) First, EXTEND your affirmative. This does not mean simply saying “extend my affirmative”. This is incorporating those OVERVIEWS that we talked about before. This is reminding the judge why the 1AC is the best policy option EVEN IF you lose every single other argument. It can get so easy to get lost in the negative refutation, but you need to remember to extend your affirmative (particularly the “stories” of your 1AC advantages). Second, RESPOND. Your job at a simple level is to respond to every argument that was said in the speech before you. This order is probably the best way to do it. Third, ADD. If you have some time you can think about adding on new advantages or reading new evidence.