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
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Affirmative Stock Issues
toby whisenhunton 5 June 2013
Transcript of Affirmative Stock Issues
Inherency – What is preventing the PLAN from going into effect in the “status quo”.
Harms – What bad things the PLAN is trying to stop or prevent from happening.
Solvency – How the PLAN stops the harms the affirmative isolates.
Topicality Topicality is an argument rooted in grammar and definitions that is used to determine if the affirmative PLAN is a true example of the resolution.
Prima Facie Affirmative Stock Issues Inherency Types of inherency:
Structural - There is a law or other barrier preventing the PLAN from being done in the status quo.
Attitudinal - There is a public sentiment against doing the PLAN in the status quo preventing it from being implemented.
Existential - The PLAN is not happening so there must be a barrier.
Harms The modern approach to presenting harms comes in the form of advantages. Negative teams have the option of arguing that the affirmative can't solve for their advantages or that they have no impact (defensive arguments).
Negatives teams can also argue that the affirmative makes the problem worse (offensive arguments). Solvency This refers to the affirmatives ability to prevent the harms they outline in their affirmative.
Solvency is derived from PLAN action. The best plans have a clear advocate or expert supporting the details.
If we do the PLAN, this should / will happen. A. Definition – A definition or two.
B. Violation – Explanation of how the affirmative plan does not fall under the above definition.
C. Standards – Why our interpretation of the resolution is good and necessary for debate.
D. Voter – Why the affirmative should loose for violating this rule.