Content-Manager
13
edits
Difference between revisions of "Policy"
m
→Answering the Affirmative: plan flaw
m (→Answering the Affirmative: plan flaw) |
|||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
===Answering the Affirmative=== | ===Answering the Affirmative=== | ||
In addition to off case positions, the 1NC also answers the affirmative case. There are a variety of ways to do this. | In addition to off case positions, the 1NC also answers the affirmative case. There are a variety of ways to do this. | ||
====Solvency Deficits==== | |||
Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. A solvency deficit is a part of the affirmative that the plan does not solve for. Winning a solvency deficit means that the affirmative does not gain any offense from case because voting aff does not change the problems they have outlined. | |||
==== Plan Flaw ==== | |||
A plan flaw may be read in rare instances where the aff's plan text does not accurately represent the action that the aff wants to happen. For example, if the plan text misspells the name of a country (United Etates) or includes an unclear acronym (WTO may be World Trade Organization or World Toilet Organization), the negative can read a plan flaw argument that says the aff will not be able to solve the harms it talks about because the plan is too vague to be implemented in the first place. | |||
====Impact Defense==== | ====Impact Defense==== | ||
Impact defense is one of the most intuitive ways to answer an advantage: it just says that the affirmative’s impact will either not happen, or is irrelevant. For example, a common affirmative argument is to say that disease impacts are existential. Impact defense would say that disease does not cause extinction for a, b, c reasons. Impact defense is extremely common and can be strategic when hitting an argument that you don’t have prep on, but often does not have high strategic value for two reasons. Firstly, impact defense is very generic; for example, an advantage about something causing a US-Russia war which then goes nuclear has a specific warrant about what triggers the war, escalation, etc., --- a generic card that says “diplomacy checks” might apply and have some value, but the affirmative will likely be able to leverage the specificity of their warrants against the generic card. Secondly, impact defense reduces the impact from 100% (extinction) to 99.9%. A 2A/NR on “disease doesn’t kill like . . . everybody. . . just millions!” isn’t exactly scintillating stuff. | Impact defense is one of the most intuitive ways to answer an advantage: it just says that the affirmative’s impact will either not happen, or is irrelevant. For example, a common affirmative argument is to say that disease impacts are existential. Impact defense would say that disease does not cause extinction for a, b, c reasons. Impact defense is extremely common and can be strategic when hitting an argument that you don’t have prep on, but often does not have high strategic value for two reasons. Firstly, impact defense is very generic; for example, an advantage about something causing a US-Russia war which then goes nuclear has a specific warrant about what triggers the war, escalation, etc., --- a generic card that says “diplomacy checks” might apply and have some value, but the affirmative will likely be able to leverage the specificity of their warrants against the generic card. Secondly, impact defense reduces the impact from 100% (extinction) to 99.9%. A 2A/NR on “disease doesn’t kill like . . . everybody. . . just millions!” isn’t exactly scintillating stuff. | ||
====Link Defense==== | ====Link Defense==== | ||
Link defense explains that the advantage’s warrants are incorrect. A typical advantage relies on a link chain that says <math>A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C</math>. Link defense would say that <math>A</math> and/or <math>B</math> and/or <math>C</math> is incorrect or wrong. For example, if the AFF proposes a plan that the United States federal government should implement a jobs guarantee with an advantage saying that the economy is doing badly now, but the plan helps the economy, link defense would say that the plan does not help the economy. | Link defense explains that the advantage’s warrants are incorrect. A typical advantage relies on a link chain that says <math>A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C</math>. Link defense would say that <math>A</math> and/or <math>B</math> and/or <math>C</math> is incorrect or wrong. For example, if the AFF proposes a plan that the United States federal government should implement a jobs guarantee with an advantage saying that the economy is doing badly now, but the plan helps the economy, link defense would say that the plan does not help the economy. | ||
====Turns==== | ====Turns==== | ||
A turn is a highly strategic argument. A turn functions as offense, saying that the opposite of what the affirmative says is true. There are two types: impact turns and link turns. | A turn is a highly strategic argument. A turn functions as offense, saying that the opposite of what the affirmative says is true. There are two types: impact turns and link turns. | ||