(no subject)
OK. i just had an A mazing realization/idea. What is the one thing that i could argue about for hours.... POLITICS. What is a club that Dana DOESNT have (stupidly)..... A DEBATE TEAM. I want to start a debate team at Dana. and wow would that look good on a college application for a someone who wants to major in Government and Law (aka ME). You have no idea how excited i am about this. I would sooo have fun with this. Anyone who goes to Dana and wants to help me get this started... post back. And go to www.debateoutreach.net This is something im really serious about getting going. k? OK. well. i am trying to get this going before the end of first trimester. For a faculty advisor im thinking perhaps Ms. Panah.... i dunno. Ok. Anyway. byebye
Live Long And Propser
Char
PS. If You are REEEALLLYY bored and want to find out ALLLL about debating.... yeah. ok. bye
Major Components of a Debate
1.1 The Resolution
The resolution is the problem area that both teams are going to debate for an entire academic year. The resolution is phrased as a statement that provides the parameters of the debate. The resolution can also be thought of as the starting point for the debate.
The resolution provides the following basic functions:
1. Issue selection: the wording of the resolution clearly delineates the issues that are to be discussed in debates for the academic year.
2. Provides agents: the resolution will state what actors (agents) the affirmative are suppose to utilize. Most resolutions name the U.S. Federal Government as the actor or agent.
3. Parameters and Burdens: the resolution provides the context in which the debate is to occur. It sets up which issues are to be debated and which team is to advocate/defend the issues. The affirmative always supports and/or advocates the resolution.
1.2 The Affirmative
The affirmative team has the burden of supporting the resolution. In order to fulfill that burden the affirmative presents a policy
case. The affirmative's goal is to convince the judge that their proposed plan of action is more advantageous than staying with the status quo.
Burdens of the Affirmative Case
1. The Affirmative case must be topical.
It is the responsibility of the affirmative team to construct a case that falls within a reasonable interpretation the resolution. It is not necessary for the affirmative to prove the entire resolution true in every instance. Rather, it is the affirmative's burden to prove that their case area falls within the scope of the resolution, and is a reasonable representation of the resolution.
Note: In the past some people believed that the affirmative was responsible for proving the entire resolution true. However, most people now believe that that would be an unfair, if not impossible task. It is now commonly accepted that the affirmative only has to prove that their plan is better than the status quo.
2. The affirmative must prove that the plan is inherent.
Inherency refers to the reason a problem exists. The affirmative has the burden to prove that a problem exists and that it will continue to exist without the affirmative plan. In another words, the affirmative has to prove that the status quo has a problem that is not being solved and the affirmative plan is necessary to fix the status quo.
There are several types of inherency that the affirmative can claim are the reason for the problem that exists in the status quo.
Structural Inherency: Structural Inherency means that something is preventing action from being taken in the status quo to solve a problem. These barriers can include laws and court decisions. For example: The ABM Treaty currently makes it illegal for the U.S. to deploy a National Missile Defense Program because such a program would violate the Treaty. o The lack of a structure that may be necessary to implement a solution can also be considered structural inherency.
Attitudinal Inherency: Attitudinal Inherency refers to beliefs, prejudices or attitudes that prevent action being taken in the status quo to solve a problem. For example: The U.S. Congress does not believe that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the U.S. so there is no action being taken to slow their spread.
Remember that attitudes can be a very difficult barrier to overcome. Even if the plan mandates action over an attitudinal barrier that does not necessarily mean that you would solve the problem. Crafty negatives can use your attitudinal inherency against your solvency arguments. For example: just because the government mandates equality in the workplace does not mean that it actually exists or that employer's attitudes would suddenly change.
Existential Inherency: Existential Inherency argues that simply because a problem exists automatically means that inherency has to exist, even if it
cannot be identified. For example: weapons of mass destruction are spreading, so the status quo must not be doing anything effective to stop them from spreading.
3. The affirmative must prove that the harm of the problem is significant.
In the discussion about inherency above it was noted that the affirmative is trying prove that a affirmative must also prove how the harm of that problem is.
problem exists, additionally the large that problem is, and what the affirmative can accomplish this through demonstrating how many people are affected by the problem and what negative affects the problem can have on those people. It is important to note that the significance of the problem does not have to be quantitative.
The significance of the harm can also be demonstrated qualitatively. For example: the affirmative case claims that the government is not enforcing the Civil Rights Act in the workplace and minorities are being discriminated against. The affirmative could demonstrate significance by using statistics to show how many people have been discriminated against, which would be a quantitative demonstration of harms. Or, they could also say that harm of discrimination is always significant irrelevant of the number of people it actually affects, which would be a qualitative demonstration of harms. ( Most affirmative structures tend to combine inherency, significance and harms in one part of affirmative. Usually, the proof/evidence that says a problem exists also demonstrates how large the problem is and why it is harmful.
4. The affirmative must provide a plan.
In order to solve the problems and harms identified by the affirmative, the affirmative must also devise a way to solve those problems. What the affirmative proposes to do to solve the problems of the status quo is called the plan. Most plans will advocate that some specific action be taken to eliminate a harm. The more specific the plan is the better.
Common Elements of a Plan: The plan should say specifically what action the affirmative will take. It is not appropriate for an affirmative to say that the plan will limit the use of weapons of mass destruction, they must specify how that goal is going to be accomplished. The plan should identify an agent. An agent is the institution or entity that will carry out the plan.
Most of the time the resolution will name the actor. For example the resolution for this year specifies the agent as the Federal Government. Note: sometimes teams decide to name a more specific agent within the Federal Government.
The plan should declare how the plan will be carried out and enforced. Usually teams leave this part up to normal means. Generally that means that the affirmative will defend the normal implementation practices of the agent that they previously identified.
5. The affirmative must prove that the plan solves.
The affirmative should provide evidence that plan solves the harm that has been previously identified. The plan should also solve the advantages that the affirmative claims as a result of the plan. Some debaters also believe that it is extremely important for the affirmative to have a plan advocate. A plan advocate is an author that states that what the plan does will solve the problem. A plan advocate specifies why the plan action will solve.
6. The affirmative must prove that the plan is advantageous.
To show that the plan is better than the status quo it should claim to result in advantages. Advantages are the benefits of the plan. The affirmative should claim that post implementation of the plan several benefits that are in addition to solving the harms will result.
Tips about advantages.
Make sure that there is a direct link between the plan and the advantage. o The plan should have the capacity to solve the impact of the advantage or at least decrease the risk of the impact occurring post the plans implementation. o The plan should be the only action that can uniquely claim the benefit of the advantage. Simply put there should not be other programs, legislation etc, that can also solve for the impact of the advantage.
Important Affirmative Concepts
Note: While these concepts are listed within the affirmative section they do concern and involve the negative.
1. Status Quo: The status quo is the way things currently are. It refers to the current policies, attitudes and behavior that exist in the world without the plan. For example, in the status quo the U.S. and Russia conform and abide by the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty. If the affirmative plan abandoned the treaty it would be different than the status quo. Hence, if the affirmative referred to the status quo they would be referring to the world with the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty and without the plan.
2. Presumption: Presumption says that status quo should be maintained until sufficient proof exists to warrant abandoning it. In debate, presumption falls with the negative. What this means for affirmatives is that it is their burden to prove that the plan is more advantageous than the status quo. If the affirmative fails to prove the plan is better that the status quo then negative wins on the presumption that the status quo is adequate. Affirmatives prove that the plan is better than the status quo through advantages and solving the case harm.
3. Fiat: Fiat is the concept or tool that allows the plan to be passed, and passed as advocated by the affirmative. Fiat guarantees that plan will be passed without any alterations, additions, subtractions, amendments etc. This allows the debate to focus on whether the plan should be done, not whether the plan would be done. Fiat guarantees passage of the plan only, not the results of passage. Affirmatives, and negatives for the matter, cannot claim that fiat means the plan is popular, inexpensive, effective, etc.
1.3 The Negative
The negative is opposed to the resolution and/or the affirmative plan. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's plan is not advantageous.
The negative has a wide variety of arguments that can be utilized to defeat the affirmative. This section will briefly describe each of these tools. Other lectures will provide a detailed explanation of each of these types of arguments. Most negatives will use several of these types of arguments at the
same time to defeat the affirmative.
1. Topicality: The negative may try to prove that the affirmative's plan is not a topical interpretation of the resolution. Remember, it is the affirmative's burden to prove that the plan be within the parameters set up by the resolution. If the negative proves that the plan is outside those parameters they win the debate because the affirmative has failed to provide a topical case.
2. Inherency: Sometimes negatives will argue that there is no reason to adopt the plan because the problem area or harms are already being solved in the status quo. Inherency arguments usually come in one of two forms. o The negative will argue that some other program, policy, proposal or mechanism is already solving for the case harm. Hence, there is no reason to do the plan.
The negative will argue that the plan has actually been done. There is no reason to adopt the plan because it's already in place in the status quo. This approach arguing inherency is not very common. It only happens when an affirmative has neglected to keep up with what has been happening in their own case area.
Remember that when you argue inherency you are essentially saying that there is no reason to adopt the plan because it is already being solved. This line of argumentation can impact other arguments you may want to argue so be careful that your inherency argument does not make your other arguments nonunique.
3. Significance and Harms: Arguing that the problem area or harms is not significant can be an effective strategy when coupled with a disadvantage. When negatives argue significance and harms they are saying that the problem is not as large or harmful as the affirmative claims. This approach minimizes the impact of the affirmative case, which is important because it means the disadvantages of doing the plan have a better chance of outweighing the advantages of doing the plan.
4. Solvency: The negative may also argue that the affirmative plan does not solve the problem.
If the negative can prove that the plan will not work then there is no reason the judge should vote for it. Especially if the plan also causes disadvantages to occur.
Common arguments against solvency
The plans agent is not capable of solving. This argument usually attempts to prove that the agent the affirmative is utilizing is lacking in some area that is vital to solve the problem. Some of these areas include expertise, past performance, corruption, not enough resources and bureaucracy.
The plan does not do enough to solve the problem. The negative is simply trying to show that the affirmative's proposal does not do enough to solve the entire problem. While this type of argument does not completely take out solvency, it does decrease the amount of harms or advantages that the affirmative can claim to solve. Decreasing the amount of solvency is important for the negative because it helps the potential negative impacts or disadvantages outweigh the potential benefits of the affirmative.
The negative can turn the affirmative's solvency. This argument simply says that the affirmative's plan actually makes the problem worse. Hence, the judge should reject the plan because it makes the problems it is trying to solve worse.
5. Disadvantage: A disadvantage is a negative offcase argument that states a bad impact will occur as the result of implementing the affirmative plan. The impact of the disadvantage is usually independent of the case harms and in fact will most likely be completely separate. The disadvantage relies on a causal chain of events that is begun by the affirmative that ends in negative impact. The goal of a disadvantage is to prove that the plan will lead to negative consequences that will outweigh any potential benefit of implementing the plan.
Disadvantages are complex beasts that will be discussed in detail in other lectures.
6. Counterplan: A counterplan is a negative offcase argument that provides an alternative to the affirmative plan. Simply put, a counterplan is the negative's plan. The goal of the counterplan is to provide a plan that is more advantageous than the affirmative's plan. Most counterplans are written in a manner that allows them to solve all or most of the affirmative's case while avoiding the disadvantages that affirmative's plan links to.
There are several different types of counterplans and different ways to argue a counterplan, these concerns will be discussed in a later lecture.
7. Critique: A critique is a negative offcase argument that focuses on the underlying assumptions of the affirmative's framework, structure, agent or even the affirmative's discourse. The critique is concerned with the justification or the dejustification of a teams' advocacy.
For example: this year the resolution calls for a foreign policy that limits the use of weapons of mass destruction. The affirmative plan may have the military take some specific action to limit the use of the weapons, which would cause a decrease in the risk of accidental war. The negative could critique this advocacy by saying that the military is an unjustified structure that is responsible for the risk of conflict. Using the military only serves to prop up its structure, which perpetuates the risk of conflict. The critique demands that the affirmative justifies the use of the military, not whether in this specific instance the military may be effective in decreasing the risk of accidental war.
Again, critiques will be covered in later lectures.
Note: these are just some of the common arguments that the negative may use to prove that the affirmative's proposal/plan is not a desirable idea. These arguments are certainly not the only arguments that a negative has at its disposal rather they serve to highlight the general types of arguments that are employed by the negative.
Live Long And Propser
Char
PS. If You are REEEALLLYY bored and want to find out ALLLL about debating.... yeah. ok. bye
Major Components of a Debate
1.1 The Resolution
The resolution is the problem area that both teams are going to debate for an entire academic year. The resolution is phrased as a statement that provides the parameters of the debate. The resolution can also be thought of as the starting point for the debate.
The resolution provides the following basic functions:
1. Issue selection: the wording of the resolution clearly delineates the issues that are to be discussed in debates for the academic year.
2. Provides agents: the resolution will state what actors (agents) the affirmative are suppose to utilize. Most resolutions name the U.S. Federal Government as the actor or agent.
3. Parameters and Burdens: the resolution provides the context in which the debate is to occur. It sets up which issues are to be debated and which team is to advocate/defend the issues. The affirmative always supports and/or advocates the resolution.
1.2 The Affirmative
The affirmative team has the burden of supporting the resolution. In order to fulfill that burden the affirmative presents a policy
case. The affirmative's goal is to convince the judge that their proposed plan of action is more advantageous than staying with the status quo.
Burdens of the Affirmative Case
1. The Affirmative case must be topical.
It is the responsibility of the affirmative team to construct a case that falls within a reasonable interpretation the resolution. It is not necessary for the affirmative to prove the entire resolution true in every instance. Rather, it is the affirmative's burden to prove that their case area falls within the scope of the resolution, and is a reasonable representation of the resolution.
Note: In the past some people believed that the affirmative was responsible for proving the entire resolution true. However, most people now believe that that would be an unfair, if not impossible task. It is now commonly accepted that the affirmative only has to prove that their plan is better than the status quo.
2. The affirmative must prove that the plan is inherent.
Inherency refers to the reason a problem exists. The affirmative has the burden to prove that a problem exists and that it will continue to exist without the affirmative plan. In another words, the affirmative has to prove that the status quo has a problem that is not being solved and the affirmative plan is necessary to fix the status quo.
There are several types of inherency that the affirmative can claim are the reason for the problem that exists in the status quo.
Structural Inherency: Structural Inherency means that something is preventing action from being taken in the status quo to solve a problem. These barriers can include laws and court decisions. For example: The ABM Treaty currently makes it illegal for the U.S. to deploy a National Missile Defense Program because such a program would violate the Treaty. o The lack of a structure that may be necessary to implement a solution can also be considered structural inherency.
Attitudinal Inherency: Attitudinal Inherency refers to beliefs, prejudices or attitudes that prevent action being taken in the status quo to solve a problem. For example: The U.S. Congress does not believe that the spread of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the U.S. so there is no action being taken to slow their spread.
Remember that attitudes can be a very difficult barrier to overcome. Even if the plan mandates action over an attitudinal barrier that does not necessarily mean that you would solve the problem. Crafty negatives can use your attitudinal inherency against your solvency arguments. For example: just because the government mandates equality in the workplace does not mean that it actually exists or that employer's attitudes would suddenly change.
Existential Inherency: Existential Inherency argues that simply because a problem exists automatically means that inherency has to exist, even if it
cannot be identified. For example: weapons of mass destruction are spreading, so the status quo must not be doing anything effective to stop them from spreading.
3. The affirmative must prove that the harm of the problem is significant.
In the discussion about inherency above it was noted that the affirmative is trying prove that a affirmative must also prove how the harm of that problem is.
problem exists, additionally the large that problem is, and what the affirmative can accomplish this through demonstrating how many people are affected by the problem and what negative affects the problem can have on those people. It is important to note that the significance of the problem does not have to be quantitative.
The significance of the harm can also be demonstrated qualitatively. For example: the affirmative case claims that the government is not enforcing the Civil Rights Act in the workplace and minorities are being discriminated against. The affirmative could demonstrate significance by using statistics to show how many people have been discriminated against, which would be a quantitative demonstration of harms. Or, they could also say that harm of discrimination is always significant irrelevant of the number of people it actually affects, which would be a qualitative demonstration of harms. ( Most affirmative structures tend to combine inherency, significance and harms in one part of affirmative. Usually, the proof/evidence that says a problem exists also demonstrates how large the problem is and why it is harmful.
4. The affirmative must provide a plan.
In order to solve the problems and harms identified by the affirmative, the affirmative must also devise a way to solve those problems. What the affirmative proposes to do to solve the problems of the status quo is called the plan. Most plans will advocate that some specific action be taken to eliminate a harm. The more specific the plan is the better.
Common Elements of a Plan: The plan should say specifically what action the affirmative will take. It is not appropriate for an affirmative to say that the plan will limit the use of weapons of mass destruction, they must specify how that goal is going to be accomplished. The plan should identify an agent. An agent is the institution or entity that will carry out the plan.
Most of the time the resolution will name the actor. For example the resolution for this year specifies the agent as the Federal Government. Note: sometimes teams decide to name a more specific agent within the Federal Government.
The plan should declare how the plan will be carried out and enforced. Usually teams leave this part up to normal means. Generally that means that the affirmative will defend the normal implementation practices of the agent that they previously identified.
5. The affirmative must prove that the plan solves.
The affirmative should provide evidence that plan solves the harm that has been previously identified. The plan should also solve the advantages that the affirmative claims as a result of the plan. Some debaters also believe that it is extremely important for the affirmative to have a plan advocate. A plan advocate is an author that states that what the plan does will solve the problem. A plan advocate specifies why the plan action will solve.
6. The affirmative must prove that the plan is advantageous.
To show that the plan is better than the status quo it should claim to result in advantages. Advantages are the benefits of the plan. The affirmative should claim that post implementation of the plan several benefits that are in addition to solving the harms will result.
Tips about advantages.
Make sure that there is a direct link between the plan and the advantage. o The plan should have the capacity to solve the impact of the advantage or at least decrease the risk of the impact occurring post the plans implementation. o The plan should be the only action that can uniquely claim the benefit of the advantage. Simply put there should not be other programs, legislation etc, that can also solve for the impact of the advantage.
Important Affirmative Concepts
Note: While these concepts are listed within the affirmative section they do concern and involve the negative.
1. Status Quo: The status quo is the way things currently are. It refers to the current policies, attitudes and behavior that exist in the world without the plan. For example, in the status quo the U.S. and Russia conform and abide by the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty. If the affirmative plan abandoned the treaty it would be different than the status quo. Hence, if the affirmative referred to the status quo they would be referring to the world with the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty and without the plan.
2. Presumption: Presumption says that status quo should be maintained until sufficient proof exists to warrant abandoning it. In debate, presumption falls with the negative. What this means for affirmatives is that it is their burden to prove that the plan is more advantageous than the status quo. If the affirmative fails to prove the plan is better that the status quo then negative wins on the presumption that the status quo is adequate. Affirmatives prove that the plan is better than the status quo through advantages and solving the case harm.
3. Fiat: Fiat is the concept or tool that allows the plan to be passed, and passed as advocated by the affirmative. Fiat guarantees that plan will be passed without any alterations, additions, subtractions, amendments etc. This allows the debate to focus on whether the plan should be done, not whether the plan would be done. Fiat guarantees passage of the plan only, not the results of passage. Affirmatives, and negatives for the matter, cannot claim that fiat means the plan is popular, inexpensive, effective, etc.
1.3 The Negative
The negative is opposed to the resolution and/or the affirmative plan. The goal of the negative is to prove that the affirmative's plan is not advantageous.
The negative has a wide variety of arguments that can be utilized to defeat the affirmative. This section will briefly describe each of these tools. Other lectures will provide a detailed explanation of each of these types of arguments. Most negatives will use several of these types of arguments at the
same time to defeat the affirmative.
1. Topicality: The negative may try to prove that the affirmative's plan is not a topical interpretation of the resolution. Remember, it is the affirmative's burden to prove that the plan be within the parameters set up by the resolution. If the negative proves that the plan is outside those parameters they win the debate because the affirmative has failed to provide a topical case.
2. Inherency: Sometimes negatives will argue that there is no reason to adopt the plan because the problem area or harms are already being solved in the status quo. Inherency arguments usually come in one of two forms. o The negative will argue that some other program, policy, proposal or mechanism is already solving for the case harm. Hence, there is no reason to do the plan.
The negative will argue that the plan has actually been done. There is no reason to adopt the plan because it's already in place in the status quo. This approach arguing inherency is not very common. It only happens when an affirmative has neglected to keep up with what has been happening in their own case area.
Remember that when you argue inherency you are essentially saying that there is no reason to adopt the plan because it is already being solved. This line of argumentation can impact other arguments you may want to argue so be careful that your inherency argument does not make your other arguments nonunique.
3. Significance and Harms: Arguing that the problem area or harms is not significant can be an effective strategy when coupled with a disadvantage. When negatives argue significance and harms they are saying that the problem is not as large or harmful as the affirmative claims. This approach minimizes the impact of the affirmative case, which is important because it means the disadvantages of doing the plan have a better chance of outweighing the advantages of doing the plan.
4. Solvency: The negative may also argue that the affirmative plan does not solve the problem.
If the negative can prove that the plan will not work then there is no reason the judge should vote for it. Especially if the plan also causes disadvantages to occur.
Common arguments against solvency
The plans agent is not capable of solving. This argument usually attempts to prove that the agent the affirmative is utilizing is lacking in some area that is vital to solve the problem. Some of these areas include expertise, past performance, corruption, not enough resources and bureaucracy.
The plan does not do enough to solve the problem. The negative is simply trying to show that the affirmative's proposal does not do enough to solve the entire problem. While this type of argument does not completely take out solvency, it does decrease the amount of harms or advantages that the affirmative can claim to solve. Decreasing the amount of solvency is important for the negative because it helps the potential negative impacts or disadvantages outweigh the potential benefits of the affirmative.
The negative can turn the affirmative's solvency. This argument simply says that the affirmative's plan actually makes the problem worse. Hence, the judge should reject the plan because it makes the problems it is trying to solve worse.
5. Disadvantage: A disadvantage is a negative offcase argument that states a bad impact will occur as the result of implementing the affirmative plan. The impact of the disadvantage is usually independent of the case harms and in fact will most likely be completely separate. The disadvantage relies on a causal chain of events that is begun by the affirmative that ends in negative impact. The goal of a disadvantage is to prove that the plan will lead to negative consequences that will outweigh any potential benefit of implementing the plan.
Disadvantages are complex beasts that will be discussed in detail in other lectures.
6. Counterplan: A counterplan is a negative offcase argument that provides an alternative to the affirmative plan. Simply put, a counterplan is the negative's plan. The goal of the counterplan is to provide a plan that is more advantageous than the affirmative's plan. Most counterplans are written in a manner that allows them to solve all or most of the affirmative's case while avoiding the disadvantages that affirmative's plan links to.
There are several different types of counterplans and different ways to argue a counterplan, these concerns will be discussed in a later lecture.
7. Critique: A critique is a negative offcase argument that focuses on the underlying assumptions of the affirmative's framework, structure, agent or even the affirmative's discourse. The critique is concerned with the justification or the dejustification of a teams' advocacy.
For example: this year the resolution calls for a foreign policy that limits the use of weapons of mass destruction. The affirmative plan may have the military take some specific action to limit the use of the weapons, which would cause a decrease in the risk of accidental war. The negative could critique this advocacy by saying that the military is an unjustified structure that is responsible for the risk of conflict. Using the military only serves to prop up its structure, which perpetuates the risk of conflict. The critique demands that the affirmative justifies the use of the military, not whether in this specific instance the military may be effective in decreasing the risk of accidental war.
Again, critiques will be covered in later lectures.
Note: these are just some of the common arguments that the negative may use to prove that the affirmative's proposal/plan is not a desirable idea. These arguments are certainly not the only arguments that a negative has at its disposal rather they serve to highlight the general types of arguments that are employed by the negative.