DEBATE Justification

JUSTIFICATION 3rd Stock Issue – Justification means “a reason to exist” which is what an affirmative case must have. Some older texts refer to Justification as harms, but has been added to because there are more justifications besides just harms 3 types of Justification A harm – causes permanent, immediate, intense, and irreversible discomfort to a living organism (plants, animals, people). Famous harms include: (saves lives) - death - Plague - dismemberment - Pestilence - disease - Pain - decapitation - debilitation Harms may be disguised as: *Species Extinction * Increased disease *Ecological Disaster *Agricultural Terrorism *Global warming *Famine and drought *Dead babies *Rainforest Deforestation The question is, is somebody dying? YOUR OBLIGATION, IF YOU CHOOSE HARM AS YOUR JUSTIFICATION IS TO SOLVE OR ALMOST COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THIS HARM

JUSTIFICATION 2. Advantage: An advantage is a good thing! (saves money) - The affirmative team does not claim the current system is hurting anyone, only that if we did things a different way, we could gain an advantage over the way we do things now. - This justification is sometimes referred to as a comparative advantage, because the Affirmative will argue that they can gain “a comparative advantage over the status quo.” - This means that comparatively speaking, the Affirmative case can gain an advantage that the current system cannot achieve.

JUSTIFICATION Let’s start with arguing against it: A Harms case is structured like this: To recap, many teams running Harms cases nowadays start out claiming harms, like death or disease. Usually, the Negative team argues that they cannot eradicate the harm [can’t achieve solvency – a Stock Issue]. Once the Negative argues they cannot solve, then Affirmative claims they gain a Comparative Advantage over the SQ.

JUSTIFICATION Here’s the problem: The obligation in a Comparative Advantage case is to gain a significant advantage. The obligation in a Harms case is to solve for the harm. These obligations are not the same. Solving for harms is HARDER than solving for significant advantage

JUSTIFICATION Let’s imagine we are in a debate round. The Affirmative team tells you they are planning to fund their plan by raising the tax on cigarettes by $4.00 per pack. You argue that if they do so, people will quit smoking to avoid paying the tax, and then they will not be able to raise enough money to fund their plan. In 2nd AC, they say, “Okay, if that that happens, we’ll have a great big garage sale.” What’s wrong with this scenario?

JUSTIFICATION The affirmative isn’t allowed to change their plan in the middle of the round! Remember the obligation if you choose a harm as your justification? [It was to solve the overwhelming majority of it, right?] So, let’s imagine we are in another debate round: The Affirmative tells you babies are dying. You argue that they can only save a few. In 2 AC, they say that they gain a comparative advantage over the status quo.

JUSTIFICATION In my opinion, your best options are as follows: [On the Negative] When you first hear the Affirmative case, listen carefully to determine whether or not they are claiming harms. If they are, someone will be dying, sick or damaged [person, plant or animal]

JUSTIFICATION In the cross-examination of the 1st Affirmative after the 1st Affirmative Constructive speech, your 2nd Negative speaker should ask the following question: “Are you running a Harms case?” They will answer one of two things: Yes, this is a Harms case, or No, this is a Comparative Advantage case. If they answer that they are running a Harms case, this should be your strategy [in 1st Negative Constructive]: Your 1st Negative [in 1NC] should run Solvency arguments that attack their ability to eradicate their stated harm. This will force the Affirmative team to answer those arguments in their 2AC [because Solvency is a Stock Issue, and to ignore your arguments would result in a loss].