Policy Debate
... Harm/Need – The Aff explains how and why bad things are happening in the current system. Variety of Harms is a good thing; it gives the judge more reasons to believe that a change is necessary! 2. Inherency – The Aff explains how and why this problem will continue (or even worsen). This is usually not terribly long, since the mere existence of the problem is usually enough to warrant change. 3. Solvency – The explanation of how the Aff Plan will fix the Harms. Remember to fix every Harm that you presented! 4. Advantages – Occasionally the Aff might show that the Plan will actually have benefits that go beyond the immediate Harms. Plan: The Plan is often presented either before the Case or just before Solvency. 1. Agent – Who or what will engage in the action? 2. Mandate – What exactly will they do? 3. Enforcement – How will it be controlled or checked on? 4. Funding – What resources are needed and how do we get them? Arguing Policy – Negative The Negative – Responding to the Case: Most of responding to the Case is very straightforward: 1. Harms: They say something’s bad, you say it’s not (or at least not as bad as they are making it out to be). 2. Inherency: They argue that X caused the problem, you argue alternate cause that their plan doesn’t address. 3. Solvency: They say their plan will solve, you say it won’t (or at least not as much as they are saying it will). 4. Advantages: You get the idea… The Nega...