The affirmative must assume the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of the resolution. There must be a change in policy suggested

The status quo cannot solve the harm without change

A substantial portion of the proof must be logical and non-artistic (evidence)

The negative has to uphold the burden of rejoinder (clash)

Affirmative case is composed of two parts Rationale Plan

Rationale – reasons for adopting resolution

Plan – proposal for implementing policy and solving the problem

Significance – the problem is of substance / impact

Harms –the problem Inherency – prove that the problem is

caused by system Plan – the affirmative must provide a

means to fix the harm Solvency – plan will eliminate harm

The problem impacts a large group of people or is widespread (cannot be just monetary)

The problem is caused by the existing policy, not an outside source To say that the welfare system causes

overpopulation is non-topical To say that persons on welfare do not receive

enough money to escape is topical

To prove that the problem is directly tied to the existing system (status quo)

Test the Significance/Harm by running it through a syllogism

If the negative can prove alternate causality then the affirmative loses.

Plans are constructed of specific planks that will illustrate the feasibility of the change Plank 1 – Mandates – How will the policy be

changed Plank 2 – Administration / Enforcement – Who

will make the new policy happen Plank 3 – Funding – How will the policy change

be paid for Plank 4 – Legislative intent – Sentence stating

what the affirmative hopes will happen as a result of the new policy

Illustrate through logic that your new plan will solve the problem you outlined in your significance / harms section

Show any advantages that can be achieved by enacting your plan This is essentially a ‘bonus’ for the voters

Straight refutation – point by point analysis of Aff case

Topicality Argument – Aff is not talking about the MUC

DA – Disadvantage – if you accept the Aff position bad things will happen

Turns – Turning the Aff case against itself CP – Counterplan – Solve the problem of

the Aff case or the resolution without changing the system (MUC) (be non-topical)

Justification – Like Topicality & Inherency

The responsibility of the affirmative to support the subject of the proposition. If the proposition says “apples” and the

affirmative talks about “oranges” they are not topical

i.e. The USFG should significantly alter the system of welfare in the US. If you try to fix welfare by improving education

then you are not topical.

Attack stock issues: Prove that # of people impacted or that the

level of impact is not significant Prove that people are not being harmed Prove that the cause of the problem is not

inherent to the system Prove problem will not be solved with plan

Increase, etc.

Decrease, etc.

= same as, equal

No, not

Greater than

Less than

Change in

Yield or to

Fx effect

I inherency

S solvency

T topicality

P paradigm

W/O withoutW/I withinB/c because

B/w between

therefore

$ money, cost, etc.

A2 answers to--

response

* drop (unanswered argument)

SH significance / harms

P Plan