The Affirmative Adapted from:

Affirmative Responsibilities Support the resolution Reject the status quo Advocate change Interpret the resolution Establish grounds for debate

Key Terms Advantage Case Case side arguments Case turns Improvement over the status quo gained by the affirmative team Case Organized series of arguments Case side arguments Arguments relating to topicality, significance, and inherency Case turns Negative arguments that claim the affirmative plan worsens the harms in the status quo Comparative advantage Argument that shows the affirmative plan to have significant and unique advantages over the status quo Contention Subdivision of an issue; an argument essential to support a position on the issue

Key Terms cont. Fiat Harm Planks Inherency Solvency Turnaround An assumed power to put a proposal into effect Harm Undesirable impact resulting from the plan Planks Provisions in the affirmative plan Inherency The state of being an intrinsic, inseparable, necessary part of a system Solvency Relationship of workability between a plan and its claimed effects Turnaround An argument that is the meaning of an opponent’s contention in the opposite of its apparent intent so it counts against the opponent

Need-Plan Case Presented when the resolution calls for the initiation of a new program/policy Develops the need for a change Develops a plan to solve the need completely Develops the argument that the plan is beneficial Secondary importance Does not work for resolution calling for incremental changes Designed to fulfill the affirmative burden to prove a case

Need Compelling Inherent The status quo is inadequate. People are suffering economically and/or physically. Inherent The harms are caused by the part of the status quo the plan is designed to remedy. The law requires the present system to operate in a way that causes the harm. The inability of the government to act without legislative authority.

Plan Meet the need Practical The plan must completely solve the needs presented by the affirmative team. Practical If the plan is not feasible, it will not be accepted. See handout on weebly for organization of Need-Plan Cases

Comparative Advantage Case Presented when the resolution calls for an incremental change Develops a plan Compares the plan to the status quo Develops the argument that the plan is more advantageous than the status quo Existing programs could be modified, but the affirmative’s plan does a better job More economically More quickly More efficiently

Advantage: Significant Corresponds to Need-Plan’s compelling argument An advantage is significant when it is an important outcome of the plan. Qualitative quality Quantitative numbers There are 4 different methods to demonstrate significance. Absolute significance Total number of units affected by the plan Risk significance The fractional proportion of the population exposed to jeopardy by the plan Degree of significance Relative value of the advantage Duration of significance The persistence of the problem

Advantage: Unique Corresponds to Need-Plan’s inherent argument The advantage is achieved through the plan, not other means. The affirmative must show that the advantage is unique to the plan when the plan can achieve the advantage to the same extent of cost, efficiency, speed, or effective coverage. See handout on weebly for Comparative Advantage Case organization

Comparative Advantage - Other There can be more than one advantage to a plan. The plan is compared to both the present system and the disadvantages. The first constructive must get through the inherency issues, harms/significance, the plan, and solvency or you are not presenting a prima facie case.

Defense against negative case arguments You must be able to anticipate possible negative attacks! Begin with the choice of arguments and evidence in the first constructive. Answers to negative arguments, backup evidence on case issues, and references to evidence already presented are handled in the second constructive. Be aware that the negative could present case turns!

Defense against topicality If you lose topicality, you WILL lose the round! Explain that your plan does meet the negative interpretation of the resolution. Present a competing definition/interpretation of the resolution and defend its superiority. Argue that no harm has come to the negative team through the affirmative interpretation.

Defense against disadvantages Explain why the plan does not link to the negative disadvantage. Argue that the disadvantage is not unique – it will result whether the affirmative plan is enacted or not. Argue that the impact of the disadvantage is insignificant/indeterminate compared to the advantage(s). Use a turnaround argument. This will reverse the link or impact of a disadvantage and produce a new advantage.

First Rebuttal The first affirmative rebuttal is the HARDEST. You can’t lose issues in the rebuttal. You can lose/concede individual arguments. Attempt to win/extend strongest arguments made in the second affirmative constructive. Focus on arguments dropped or mishandled by the negative team in the negative block. The order you address issues is key because of the limited time.

Second Rebuttal You get the last word on the issue. Every argument presented by the second negative rebuttal should be addressed. Also consider what the negative did not address especially if the negative neglected the flow of the caseside. Maximize the importance of your advantages and minimize the probability/significance of the negative’s disadvantages. In the last 1-2 minutes, end with a “story” to show the judge how the affirmative’s advantages outweigh the negative’s disadvantages.