 |
| Harm- Need for change/ because of a significant amount of suffering Quantitative harm- many people suffer Qualitative harm- a few suffer but to a great degree Inherency (uniqueness)- states that the harms are ingrained in the Status Quo (SQ) Structural inherency- the strongest type of inherency one can use. It states that a law, rule or fact of life is causing the harm Gap Inherency- weaker than structural. The aff suggests that although the present system is taking steps to solve the problem, those steps fall short of solving and therefore their plan must be adopted. Attitudinal Inherency- people's beliefs cause the harm. This is weaker than structural inherency, and can be argued effectively by negs who will say that people's attitudes will stop the plan from working. Existential Inherency- There is a problem, and something is causing it in the system. The mere existence of a problem is enough to warrant change. It is flawed in that there are no real causes. Nor is there enough of a link to the status quo as the cause of the problem. It is very weak and should not be used. Solvency- Tells how the aff plan solves the harm. Solvency is the opposite of inherency Disadvantages/Cost- the aff plan will have its unpleasant side effects. As long as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, affs can argue that their plans are good. Significance- deals with the size and scope of the harm. Likewise, it can also deal with the advantages of a plan, stating that many people will benefit. Workability or unworkability- merely states whether a plan will work or not. Often it is constructed in the form of questions to the aff team about their plan. Questions can range from how the plan will be funded to who will enforce the rules, and how. Process/means resolutions- Resolutions which ask the aff team to support a plan of action, but which leave the aff to work on the details or how the plan will be done. Ex: a plan which states the Fed. Gov must fund all education in America, leaves the aff team to work out a plan whereby they could do so. They are working on the process of funding education, not particulary with an end goal in mind. Result/ ends resolutions- tell the goal to accomplish rather than the way it is to be accomplished. It is the goal that is important, and again the means by which to accomplish the goal are left to the affirmative. Ex: A plan that calls for the improvement of medical care for the elderly in the US. is concerned with the end result: better healthcare. Power of Fiat: An aff strategy in which they can wish their plan into existence Traditional Needs Case: A plan built around a problem or harm. Main Contention 1 = Harm, Contention 2 = Inherency, PLAN, Contention 3 = Solvency Planks: Basic parts of a plan, such as mandates, enforcement, funding and administration Mandates: the rules or goals the plan sets out to accomplish Administration: Details who will put the plan into operation Enforcement: States what will happen if the mandates are not followed or carried out. Funding: Tells how you will finance your plan, usually a plan to change costs money but not always. Affs can generate money in several popular ways: 1 rerouting gov money from other programs, 2. Taxing, 3. Contributions or gifts. Affs can use one or all ways. Spikes- These are hidden in a plan, and are not labelled as spikes. The reason for plan spikes is to offset a possible disadvantage that the plan could cause. Legislative Intent- gives the aff team the right to interpret their plan in any way that they see fit. It is there to stop negs from misinterpreting their words to their own advantage. |
|
 |
 |