The Affirmative And Stock Issues By: Matt Miller

Number 1 Reason to Care According to William H. Bennett the affirmative wins roughly 70% of all rounds. The Negative only wins roughly 30%. So its kind of Important.

The Affirmative = Change Must be a topical proposition to the resolution Must be a topical proposition to the resolution Must show an Inherent barrier to action Must show an Inherent barrier to action Must show significant harm from inaction Must show significant harm from inaction Must have a plan to solve a demonstrated harm Must have a plan to solve a demonstrated harm And the effect of the plan will be to reduce or eliminate the problem (solvency) And the effect of the plan will be to reduce or eliminate the problem (solvency)

Dandelion Diagram The Dandelion’s Head Represents A Significant Harm In The Status Quo. And The Stem Represents An Inherent Barrier To Stopping That Harm – As Long As There Is A Stem There Will Be A Harm. To get rid of the problem you must remove the barrier and enact a plan.

Harms = Justification for change Good Harms scenarios Good Harms scenarios – Moral/Intrinsic – Economic – Social – Political Can be mitigated or turned Can be mitigated or turned – Time Frame - mitigation – Quantifiable – mitigation – Magnitude – mitigation (significance) – Probability – mitigation (potentiality) – The Harm is actually good, ect. - turn

Justification… Just Harms? What is the consequence of solvency? What is the consequence of solvency? – Advantages: the possible positive effects of stopping a harm can be called advantages. What more does this prove? What more does this prove? – Justification: the why… if you prove a comparative advantage above and beyond what the status quo can do. Examples? Examples? - Confidence- Neighbors Model - Confidence- Neighbors Model - Possible golf course- Value of houses increase - Possible golf course- Value of houses increase

Inherency Structural Inherency – Barriers that are apparent in policies, court cases, systems and methods. Almost undisputable… Structural Inherency – Barriers that are apparent in policies, court cases, systems and methods. Almost undisputable… Attitudinal Inherency – claims that the beliefs and biases of policy makers prevents the cease of a stated harm. Attitudinal Inherency – claims that the beliefs and biases of policy makers prevents the cease of a stated harm. Existential Inherency – An invalid approach to proving a barrier exists because it relies on assumptions to prove a barrier exists. Existential Inherency – An invalid approach to proving a barrier exists because it relies on assumptions to prove a barrier exists.

Inherency - Arguments Rely on the relationship that exists among the stock issues. Rely on the relationship that exists among the stock issues. Builds Argumentation off of the three types. Builds Argumentation off of the three types. Common Arguments 1.Incrementalism 2.Minor Repairs 3.Multiple and Alternate Causality 4.Circumvention

Burdens of an incremental status quo Burdens of an incremental status quo – Motive – A reason for change – harms? (could be bad to admit harms are bad) (could be bad to admit harms are bad) – Means – An ability to change – i.e. funds, man power ect. (weight) (could prove that the aff case has the means also) – Mechanisms – This specific ability to change must be a structural ability i.e. organizations, policies ect (lever) – Trend – Without trend incremetalism would only be a shabby counter plan. Incremetalism – Relies on a trend apparent in the status quo that is moving toward the affirmative’s proposition.

Justification Progressive Status Quo – Explains the dynamic changes already present in the current system. Must show mechanisms toprove i.e.. A funding source and system… Research Burden – It’s neg ground to justify working and changing mechanisms in the status quo, when the affirmative argues present systems are working and they just want to perpetuate the status quo, that action forces the negative towrite arguments against the very thing the negmust defend. Doubles the research burden. Structural inherency – proving a structure in the status quo that can solve the problem (mechanisms) disproves the affirmative's claims of structural inherency. Minor Repairs – Shows that a minor non topical change in the status quo proves no inherent barrier to action.

Causality Argumentation Multiple Causality – A AA Argues that the harms are not solely dependent on the “claimed” inherency but rather stem from the Affirmative’s claimed inherency and other barriers in the status quo Alternate Causality – A AA Argues that the harms of the case are independent from the “claimed” inherency.

Circumvention Consequence of Multiple/Alternate causality Consequence of Multiple/Alternate causality Argues that barriers in the status quo are so “strong” that this prevents/circumvents all possible solvency. Argues that barriers in the status quo are so “strong” that this prevents/circumvents all possible solvency. Must prove motive and means to over ride solvency. Must prove motive and means to over ride solvency. I.E. structures perpetuate the same harm claimed, opposing attitudes to plan, existential = shot in the dark… I.E. structures perpetuate the same harm claimed, opposing attitudes to plan, existential = shot in the dark…

Solvency Two types are… –I–I–I–Internal Solvency: This answers the question can it be done i.e. enough money, an administration, enforcement? –E–E–E–External Solvency: This answers the question will the result of plan work? I.E. solve the harms…

Solvency Argumentation - Offensive Absolute Solvency attacks – Commonly referred to as solvency turns, i.e. turn post plan the harms will get worse. Absolute Solvency attacks – Commonly referred to as solvency turns, i.e. turn post plan the harms will get worse. Comparative Solvency attacks – Warrants that the result of the plan will be to perpetuate an existent harm outside of the PMN story. (Linear DA) Comparative Solvency attacks – Warrants that the result of the plan will be to perpetuate an existent harm outside of the PMN story. (Linear DA)

Solvency Argumentation – Defensive PMN attacks – Plan Meet Need, does the plan in a vacuum overcome inherency on face value? PMN attacks – Plan Meet Need, does the plan in a vacuum overcome inherency on face value? Circumvention – Will solvency prove to solve for root cause of the harm? If not then solvency is circumvented. Circumvention – Will solvency prove to solve for root cause of the harm? If not then solvency is circumvented. Mitigation – Good example is desirability, the plan is not popular so it will not solve. Mitigation – Good example is desirability, the plan is not popular so it will not solve. SOLVENCY IS INDEPENDENT FROM ADVANTAGES!!! If not advantages would only be a redundancy of the first affirmative constructive. If not advantages would only be a redundancy of the first affirmative constructive.