1,166
edits
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Topicality is whether the affirmative is affirming the resolution. See [[Topicality]]. | Topicality is whether the affirmative is affirming the resolution. See [[Topicality]]. | ||
===Advantages=== | ===Advantages=== | ||
Advantages are a different method of structuring the offense in a policy AC. On the national circuit, this is the more common structure. This type of AC contains all 5 stock issues, but is organized slightly differently; instead of having 5 delineated portions, the first argument is often an inherency argument, followed by 1-3 advantages, concluding with solvency. The advantages derive their name, intuitively, from what the benefits, or advantages, of enacting the policy proposed by the affirmative would be. These are also the harms outlined above. An advantage is the same thing as a contention for traditional debate, but instead of providing a contention for the resolution as a broad principle, they stem from the specific policy proposed by the affirmative. An advantage can be thought of as telling the story of the affirmative: | Advantages are a different method of structuring the offense in a policy AC. On the national circuit, this is the more common structure. This type of AC contains all 5 stock issues, but is organized slightly differently; instead of having 5 delineated portions, the first argument is often an inherency argument, followed by 1-3 advantages, concluding with solvency. The advantages derive their name, intuitively, from what the benefits, or advantages, of enacting the policy proposed by the affirmative would be. These are also the harms outlined above. An advantage is the same thing as a contention for traditional debate, but instead of providing a contention for the resolution as a broad principle, they stem from the specific policy proposed by the affirmative. An advantage can be thought of as telling the story of the affirmative: <math>X</math> is happening in the status quo, which causes <math>Y</math> to happen, which is bad because of <math>Z</math>. A more concrete example on the topic, resolved: states ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, might say: war between the US and Russia is coming now, war escalates to go nuclear, which is bad because nuclear war causes extinction. Then, the solvency would say, but eliminating nuclear arsenals solves because there are no nuclear weapons to launch anymore. | ||
===Framing=== | ===Framing=== | ||
Unlike in philosophical or traditional affirmatives where there is a wide variety of framework, in policy debate there are only two main framing mechanisms, both of which are forms of utilitarianism: | Unlike in philosophical or traditional affirmatives where there is a wide variety of framework, in policy debate there are only two main framing mechanisms, both of which are forms of utilitarianism: |