Chapters 10-11-12-13

Chapters 10-11-12-13 Affirmative Terms and Cases

Affirmative Terms • Case: Reasons: observations-statements of fact contentions-serious, widespread problems Advantages-unique benefits through adaptation of affirmative plan

Affirmative Terms • Status quo-present way of doing things (law, policy, program) • Should-ought to be adopted • Should-Would: negative argues-prove that the topic should be accepted • Fiat-”let it be done” affirmative does not have to prove that the plan will be passed, only that it should be passed

Affirmative Terms • Burden of Proof-show why the status quo can’t solve the problems presented or gain the advantages. Show status quo is not effective! • Prima Facie Case-”on the face of things” sufficient evidence and reasons must be presented for the resolution-much like a grand jury.

Affirmative Terms • Stock Issues: Topicality-case must relate to issue Harms-problem with status quo Inherency-”built in” to system-so status quo will not work Solvency-Affirmative plan must solve the problem Disadvantages-no new disadvantages or disadvantages must not outweigh advantages

Tips-Topicality • Affirmative is free to choose the case they want to build based on the issue. • Make sure advantages are directly related to the issue! • Affirmative plan must directly relate to the resolution stated in the proposition • Must make significant change not minor changes

Harms-Tips • Problems in the status quo-so this is why we have to change! -physical: such as illness or death -monetary: such as too much spending or not enough spending -social: discrimination or depriving of rights

Harms • Must be significant in terms of: • quantitative (millions affected), • qualitative (quality of life drastically improves), or • future aspects (avoid BIG problems in future). People disagree over the type of damage occurring in some situation

Inherency • The system we currently have is faulty and we cannot fix it-so….we need to get rid of the system we currently have and adopt the AFFIRMATIVE PLAN! • laws, treaties, court rulings, or executive orders that prevent the proposed affirmative plan.

Inherency • Status quo is capable of solving the problem without resorting to extreme measures • Three types: Structural, gap, attitudinal!

Structural Inherency • Structural inherency is the strongest type of inherent barrier to establish. A structural analysis suggests that a law, or rule, or fact of life is causing the harms.

Structural Inherency • For example, the Affirmative may argue that people who do not get a good education have low productivity, and thus earn low wages, and thus are condemned to poverty. The causal link of poor education to low income is based on economic facts. Similarly, the government rule that people who have given up looking for jobs are not counted as "unemployed" means that the unemployment figures underestimate the number of people in need of work; a law demonstrates structural inherency.

Gap Inherency • Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency. The Affirmative notes that the present system has identified a problem and is taking steps against it, but those steps fall short of curing the harms. There is a gap between the solution now in existence and the harm that needs to be cured.

Gap Inherency • For example, federal welfare payments are designed to relieve poverty, but the money a family receives from welfare is too little to raise it above the poverty line — a gap exists. Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency because it shows that the status quo is already making some effort to remove the problem.

Attitudinal Inherency • Attitudinal inherency claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions.

Attitudinal Inherency • For example, racial prejudice — an attitudinal problem — prevents many blacks from getting good-paying jobs, thus causing poverty to strike at the African-American family more often than the white family. Another example is that people find it humiliating to ask for charity (an attitude), and so many poor people refuse out of pride to participate in welfare and food stamp programs, and thus suffer poverty and malnutrition (the harm). Attitudinal inherency, also, is weaker than structural inherency.

Uniqueness • Refers to affirmative plan of comparative advantages • Advantages are unique to affirmative plan only and cannot be achieved by the negative in any way!

Solvency • Affirmative's goal is to show that the plan WILL WORK to solve the problems they have mentioned! • Usually this means finding evidence in which an authority supports the specific proposal the Affirmatives are suggesting.

Disadvantages • harmful side-effects of the Affirmative plan • Advantages must outweigh disadvantages of the affirmative plan!

Paradigms • Models used in judging debates • The way someone views the world • We will use a combination of the stock issues/policy maker model.

Affirmative Case • Does this particular area have any problems? • Do any harms result from these problems? • Is there any mechanism in the status quo that is capable of solving the problems if it is expanded, enforced, better funded, or modified?

Affirmative Case • Are there any advantages gained from replacing the present policy? • What changes are necessary to gain this advantage? • Has anyone suggested an alternative approach?

Affirmative Case • Do the alternatives have serious problems? • What is necessary to adopt a new program-money, staff, enforcement?

Needs Case-Stock Issues • Is there a need to change the present system, and is the need to change significant? • Are there structural, attitudinal, or philosophical barriers that prevent the present system from solving the harm?

Needs Case • Will the adoption of the resolution solve the problems? • Does the plan do what’s called for in the resolution? • Will the plan be free from serious workability problems and disadvantages?

Specific Issues • From the stock issues, you develop and write the specific issues for your case and answer these questions in the debate. • Is there a need to change the law that abortion is legal in the United States? • Are there structural, attitudinal, or philosophical barriers that prevent the legality of abortion from solving the right to life issue?

Specific Issues • Will the adoption of the making abortion illegal solve the problems? • Does making abortion illegal do what’s called for in the resolution? • Will making abortion illegal be free from serious workability problems and disadvantages?

Comparative Advantages Case • Use this case if you cannot tear down the status quo. • Use this case to stress that your “plan” is BETTER than the status quo! • Emphasize the significant benefits and advantages of your plan! • Your plan is unique; it does things that the status quo cannot do!

Comparative Advantages Case • Make sure all advantages relate to the original debate proposition. If they do not, the negative can use this against you! • Our plan better meets the goals than the status quo does! • Focus on all the positives that your plan creates-not the negatives of the status quo.

Chapters 10-11-12-13