1 / 15

The Affirmative And Stock Issues

The Affirmative And Stock Issues. By: Matt Miller. Number 1 Reason to Care. According to William H. Bennett the affirmative wins roughly 70% of all rounds. The Negative only wins roughly 30%. So its kind of Important. The Affirmative = Change. Must be a topical proposition to the resolution

ulla
Télécharger la présentation

The Affirmative And Stock Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Affirmative And Stock Issues By: Matt Miller

  2. Number 1 Reason to Care • According to William H. Bennett the affirmative wins roughly 70% of all rounds. • The Negative only wins roughly 30%. • So its kind of Important.

  3. The Affirmative = Change • Must be a topical proposition to the resolution • Must show an Inherent barrier to action • Must show significant harm from inaction • Must have a plan to solve a demonstrated harm • And the effect of the plan will be to reduce or eliminate the problem (solvency)

  4. Dandelion Diagram The Dandelion’s Head Represents A Significant Harm In The Status Quo. To get rid of the problem you must remove the barrier and enact a plan. And The Stem Represents An Inherent Barrier To Stopping That Harm – As Long As There Is A Stem There Will Be A Harm.

  5. Harms = Justification for change • Good Harms scenarios • Moral/Intrinsic • Economic • Social • Political • Can be mitigated or turned • Time Frame - mitigation • Quantifiable – mitigation • Magnitude – mitigation (significance) • Probability – mitigation (potentiality) • The Harm is actually good, ect. - turn

  6. Justification…Just Harms? • What is the consequence of solvency? • Advantages:the possible positive effects of stopping a harm can be called advantages. • What more does this prove? • Justification:the why… if you prove a comparative advantage above and beyond what the status quo can do. • Examples? - Confidence - Neighbors Model - Possible golf course - Value of houses increase

  7. Inherency • Structural Inherency – Barriers that are apparent in policies, court cases, systems and methods. Almost undisputable… • Attitudinal Inherency – claims that the beliefs and biases of policy makers prevents the cease of a stated harm. • Existential Inherency – An invalid approach to proving a barrier exists because it relies on assumptions to prove a barrier exists.

  8. Inherency - Arguments • Rely on the relationship that exists among the stock issues. • Builds Argumentation off of the three types. Common Arguments • Incrementalism • Minor Repairs • Multiple and Alternate Causality • Circumvention

  9. Incremetalism – Relies on a trend apparent in the status quo that is moving toward the affirmative’s proposition. • Burdens of an incremental status quo • Motive –A reason for change – harms? (could be bad to admit harms are bad) • Means –An ability to change – i.e. funds, man power ect. (weight) (could prove that the aff case has the means also) • Mechanisms –This specific ability to change must be a structural ability i.e. organizations, policies ect (lever) • Trend –Without trend incremetalism would only be a shabby counter plan.

  10. Minor Repairs – Shows that a minor non topical change in the status quo proves no inherent barrier to action. Justification Progressive Status Quo– Explains the dynamic changes already present in the current system. Must show mechanisms to prove i.e.. A funding source and system… Research Burden –It’s neg ground to justify working and changing mechanisms in the status quo, when the affirmative argues present systems are working and they just want to perpetuate the status quo, that action forces the negative to write arguments against the very thing the neg must defend. Doubles the research burden. Structural inherency – proving a structure in the status quo that can solve the problem (mechanisms) disproves the affirmative's claims of structural inherency.

  11. Causality Argumentation • Multiple Causality –Argues that the harms are not solely dependent on the “claimed” inherency but rather stem from the Affirmative’s claimed inherency and other barriers in the status quo • Alternate Causality –Argues that the harms of the case are independent from the “claimed” inherency.

  12. Circumvention • Consequence of Multiple/Alternate causality • Argues that barriers in the status quo are so “strong” that this prevents/circumvents all possible solvency. • Must prove motive and means to over ride solvency. • I.E. structures perpetuate the same harm claimed, opposing attitudes to plan, existential = shot in the dark…

  13. Solvency • Two types are… • Internal Solvency:This answers the question can it be done i.e. enough money, an administration, enforcement? • External Solvency:This answers the question will the result of plan work? I.E. solve the harms…

  14. Solvency Argumentation - Offensive • Absolute Solvency attacks –Commonly referred to as solvency turns, i.e. turn post plan the harms will get worse. • Comparative Solvency attacks –Warrants that the result of the plan will be to perpetuate an existent harm outside of the PMN story. (Linear DA)

  15. Solvency Argumentation – Defensive • PMN attacks – Plan Meet Need, does the plan in a vacuum overcome inherency on face value? • Circumvention – Will solvency prove to solve for root cause of the harm? If not then solvency is circumvented. • Mitigation– Good example is desirability, the plan is not popular so it will not solve. SOLVENCY IS INDEPENDENT FROM ADVANTAGES!!! If not advantages would only be a redundancy of the first affirmative constructive.

More Related