Difference between revisions of "Policy"
Added some explanations of inherency and added a space to explain other stock issues. Explained models of plans other than stock issues.
(Added some explanations of inherency and added a space to explain other stock issues. Explained models of plans other than stock issues.) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Plans == | == Plans == | ||
Plans defend a more specific instance of the resolution. For example, with the resolution "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals," a common plan text was, "Resolved: North Korea ought to eliminate its nuclear arsenal." | Plans defend a more specific instance of the resolution. For example, with the resolution "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals," a common plan text was, "Resolved: North Korea ought to eliminate its nuclear arsenal." Plans generally must uphold the five stock issues, Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. | ||
===Significance=== | |||
===Harms=== | |||
===Inherency=== | |||
Inherency is a proof that the harms cannot be solved in the status quo. There are three types of inherency, structural, attitudinal, and existential. '''Structural Inherency''' argues there is a structure that prevents the harm from being solved, such as laws. '''Attitudinal Inherency''' says the harms cannot be solved because peoples' beliefs or attitudes prevent it from being so. '''Existential Inherency''' argues that because the harms exist in the status quo, the status quo has proven itself unable to solve. | |||
=== Topicality === | === Topicality === | ||
Plans are often subject to [[topicality]], an argument that states affirmative's that read a plan are not "topical" since they do not defend the entirety of the resolution. | |||
===Solvency=== | |||
===Other Models=== | |||
However, some plans do not actually state all five stock issues, but rather have only two parts: advantages (formatted similar to a DA, but showing a problem with the status quo instead of the plan) and solvency (how the plan solves the advantages). | |||
== Counterplans == | == Counterplans == | ||
A counterplan proposes an alternative advocacy to the aff's plan. Since the negative's job is to "negate" the affirmative - they do not necessarily need to defend the status quo. If they can prove that their alternative counterplan is superior to the aff's plan, that is a sufficient reason to negate. | A counterplan proposes an alternative advocacy to the aff's plan. Since the negative's job is to "negate" the affirmative - they do not necessarily need to defend the status quo. If they can prove that their alternative counterplan is superior to the aff's plan, that is a sufficient reason to negate. | ||