Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Building the Affirmative Case: CX
Transcript of Building the Affirmative Case: CX
Addresses whether the status quo, or present system, can solve the harm(s)
Choose a harm scenario and determine hat the status quo cannot solve this harm through current programs
This is the inherent barrier
You then offer your own solution - the plan
Building your affirmative case
Checklist to ensure you have included key elements necessary for a successful case
Addresses whether the affirmative case relates directly or indirectly to the resolution to be debated.
Explore various levels and nuances of the topic to find an area of the topic that you feel compelled to debate
Addresses whether the affirmative plan can solve the harm.
A lot of time is spent in pointing out the flaws of the affirmative teams plan
Negative argues the plan will not solve the harm
Specific EVIDENCE is key!
Now we know the building blocks, the STOCK ISSUES
Let's look at how to build the case
Unwanted problem resulting from an action or inaction of the current system.
Focus the debate on a problem that exists in the present system
Step 1: Determine Topicality
Directly or indirectly related to resolution
Negative team will challenge your case on topicality and inherency
Prepare responses to these attacks
Step 2: Contention 1 - Introduce Harm Scenarios
Introduce most significant harms
Scope and impact of harm
Two-Three excellent pieces of evidence
Stories, statistics, testimony shows the complexity of the harm scenarios
Step 3: Contention II - Prove Inherency
Point out the inability of the status quo to rectify the issues you introduced in the harm scenarios
Two-three excellent pieces of evidence
Specific examples of how the status quo has failed
Includes stories, statistics, dollar amounts, attitudes that prevent success, lack of governmental support, no specific plan of action etc.
Show the inherent barrior prevents the status quo from solving the harm scenarios now and in the future
Step 4: Contention III - Establish Solvency
Point out that the affirmative plan can and will solve the harm scenarios pointed out in contention I
Three-five excellent pieces of evidence that show how the affirmative plan will solve the harm scenarios
Examples of how your plan has worked elsewhere or in a smaller situation (avoid having all theoretical evidence)
Convince the judge the affirmative plan is competitive with the status quo
Step 5: Propose Plan
Present alternative to status quo
Contentions I, II, and III prove there is a need for change
The plan is a short paragraph that explains the change that you are suggesting
Step 6: Contention IV - Identify Advantages
You are asking the judge to abandon the status quo for your plan
You must offer the change, rationale for the change, a mechanism for change, and the benefits of the change.
These are advantages
Advantages of choosing the affirmative plan over the status quo - three to five pieces of excellent evidence
Last opportunity to impress the judge and reinforce the need for the change you suggested in your plan
Brief description of what you want to happen, such as creating a new policy or program, eliminating an existing program or policy, making a new law, making a new rule, creating a new procedure, and so on
if your plan requires funding, you must specify the source of the funds, such as taxes, fees, reallocation of funds, and so on
Identify who will oversee your plan and offer the necessary directions for implementation.
Identify how long it will take to see results when the plan is executed. Describe the results. If the results are covered in another part of the case, a description is not needed in the plan.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
Resolved: That the federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States.