NFA-LD Overview
RESOLVED: that the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy to significantly increase the production of energy from renewable sources.
In a policy debate, the affirmative side supports the topic. The affirmative offers one or more reasons as to why the principles expressed in the topic ought to be upheld. This usually means that the opening affirmative speaker advocates a plan of action that is new, challenging established ideas and policies. It is the obligation of the person introducing an argument to prove that argument. For example, in a criminal court case, the defense may file a motion for dismissal if the prosecutor fails to provide a well-substantiated case for conviction. Similarly, the 1AC has a burden of proof, a requirement to establish proofs for the topic, such that the negative side would have to respond in the debate. In order to meet this burden, the affirmative team includes particular arguments in its case. The stock issues of policy debate are the core elements of a logical proof of the affirmative team’s case.
The stock issues include inherency, significance/harms, and solvency arguments. These specialized arguments will establish the following:
• there is an ongoing problem;
• the problem is a serious one, requiring immediate attention;
• the policy action, the plan, suggested by the affirmative team, is a workable solution to the problem.
Inherency arguments describe the conditions that perpetuate a problem. These arguments prove that a problem is ongoing, that it will not be satisfactorily addressed by current policymakers. The problem will continue and will NOT be solved by the status quo
Significance/Harms arguments prove that the problem is serious, that it has qualitative and quantitative scope. In other words, it matters a lot and matters to a lot of people. The continuing problem is a threat and something bad is happening.
Solvency arguments prove that a recommended plan of action, usually the affirmative team’s support for a specific law or administrative action, will work to solve the problem identified by the affirmative team. The solvency arguments establish that the plan will produce policy benefits (advantages) that are greater in degree or scope than any disadvantages or unintended negative outcomes. The affirmative team will reduce or eliminate the serious problem by adopting the plan.
The final stock issue is Topicality. The affirmative is assumed to be topical until challenged by the negative. The negative is arguing that the affirmative falls outside of the scope of the resolution and is thus not topical. This is bad because now the negative is not prepared to debate because their guiding principle in research is the resolution. So if an affirmative violates the resolution, they must be punished for providing a case that is not debateable.
(Courtesy of John Boyer, Lafayette College)
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.