Example 1AC
Here is an example of a 1AC – the first speech in an NFA-LD round. This is what is referred to as an Affirmative Team’s “case.” It is well thought out, scripted, and teams should anticipate answers to the 1AC that the negative team will make.
The 1AC (First Affirmative Constructive)
There are two main affirmative constructive formats: the Needs approach (stock issues) and the comparative advantage approach. I’ll sketch out an examples of both approaches.
THE NEEDS PARADIGM (STOCK ISSUES)
This paradigm basically asserts that there is a need (harms/inherency) in the status quo that we should attempt to solve (plan/solvency). It follows a pretty basic layout.
Observation One: Inherency
A. The Senate has tried to pass a renewable portfolio standard, but the House always has always struck it down.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. The magnitude of US oil dependence is putting the nation at risk
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
Observation Two: Harms
A. The US is currently dependent on foreign sources of energy.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. Dependence on foreign sources of energy funds foreign dictators and terrorism.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
C. Terrorism is getting increasingly worse and the new age of terrorism will risk extinction.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
D. The expected spike in oil, will lead to social chaos and instability.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
Plan
The United States Federal Government will adopt a policy to increase the production of energy from renewable sources by requiring that all states implement a renewable portfolio standard of 20% by 2020.
Enforcement and funding through normal means. Ask questions and I’ll clarify.
Observation Three: Solvency
A. RPS successfully helps sustain renewable energy markets.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. RPS has advantages over traditional power sources including stability.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
C. RPS will make renewable energy cost competitive.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
D. Federal RPS will lower cost of renewable energy and benefit the economy.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE CASE
This set up is similar to the previous case, in that it includes all of the same arguments, just in a different format.
Observation One: Inherency
A. The Senate has tried to pass a renewable portfolio standard, but the House always has always struck it down
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. The magnitude of US oil dependence is putting the nation at risk
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
Plan
The United States Federal Government will adopt a policy to increase the production of energy from renewable sources by requiring that all states implement a renewable portfolio standard of 20% by 2020.
Enforcement and funding through normal means. Ask questions and I’ll clarify.
Observation Two: Advantages
Advantage One: Oil Dependence is bad
A. The US is currently dependent on foreign sources of energy
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. Dependence on foreign sources of energy funds foreign dictators and terrorism.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
C. Terrorism is getting increasingly worse and the new age of terrorism will risk extinction
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
D. RPS successfully helps sustain renewable energy markets.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
E. RPS has advantages over traditional power sources including stability.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
Advantage Two: Oil price spikes are bad
A. The expected spike in oil, will lead to social chaos and instability.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
B. RPS will make renewable energy cost competitive.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
C. Federal RPS will lower cost of renewable energy and benefit the economy.
[INSERT EVIDENCE HERE]
Here is an Example 1AC with evidence that follows the NEEDS paradigm as a pdf file.
(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.
Leave a Reply