advocacy of a proposition of value requires a reasonable definition of terms.
In
debating value propositions, definition is a stock issue essential to proving a prima
facie case and is considered in that context here.
Definition, however, involves more than providing definitions of the terms in
the resolution. Definition provides the affirmative’s interpretation of the meaning
of the propositional statement.
- the affirmative must provide a reasonable criterion for each of the value
terms in the proposition and for the primary value defended. Criteria offer
a measure of the values and a method of comparing competing values. The
negative must also carefully consider the criterion offered by the
affirmative and be ready either to offer a better criterion or to take
advantage of any error of the affirmative.
Application is the measure of effect in accepting the value, or
concrete implication of the value. If the value set out in the
proposition is accepted, what will happen?
In value debates the advocates must sometimes prove that
certain factors are intrinsic to various elements of the case or to
the relationship between certain elements of the case.
A factor is intrinsic if it is embedded within the essential nature
of a thing or is an inherent characteristic or consequence of the
thing.
As in policy debate, the advocates in value debate have to prove that
the essentials of their case are significant.
The values they advocate must be proved to be significant values, and
the application of those values must be significant.
-prepare a manuscript of the first affirmative speech.
-final draft of the manuscript should be the product of extensive rewriting
and editing and should reflect the maximum skill of the advocate in speech
composition.
-advocates have to prepare briefs—short speech segments—that they will
use to refute negative attacks and to extend affirmative arguments.
1. Significance Significance asks the 2. Compelling Harm must above all be
question, “How much harm is there?” compelling. As with all arguments, the
Advocates strive to demonstrate key to a compelling harm is impact. If
quantitative significance, a numerical, a reasonable person can be aware of
observable, and concrete measure of the harm and ask, “so what?” the
the harm. harm is probably not very compelling.
3. Widespread This depends somewhat on the nature of the resolution. Most
policy resolutions call for national or international action. If a problem is
local or regional, national or international action may not be called for. It is
up to the advocates of change to prove the widespread and pervasive
nature of the harm.
Inherency may be thought of as a propensity for future harm. Once it has been
established that there is a harm that needs to be corrected, a decision maker considers
alternatives. If the problem is likely to go away without a major overhaul of the status
quo, then substantial change is unwarranted. Inherency looks to the causes of a
problem. Structural inherency The strongest form of inherency is structural inherency.
Structural inherency demonstrates that the harm is permanently built into the status
quo and that major revisions of the status quo are needed to in order to eliminate the
harm. Structural inherency consists of law, court decisions that have the force of law,
and societal structures. Attitudinal inherency suggests that attitudes prevent solution
of the identified problem within the status quo.
Provide a plan of action for solving that harm. This plan must meet
the burden of solvency: It must solve the harm better than the
status quo does.
PLANK 1—AGENCY In this plank the affirmative specifies who will be
responsible for administering its plan. This may include identifying who
will enact the plan and/or who will do the work of the plan.
PLANK 2—MANDATES In most debates this is the essence of the plan. In
this plank the affirmative specifies the mandates given to the agency that
administers the plan. The affirmative must specify exactly what it requires
the agency to do.
PLANK 3—ENFORCEMENT In this plank the affirmative specifies how the
plan will be enforced. In the need and inherency issues, the affirmative
has provided many reasons people will resist its plan.
PLANK 4—FUNDING AND STAFFING In this plank the affirmative specifies
how it will get the funds and staff to permit the agency to carry out its
mandates.
PLANK 5—ADDENDUM In this concluding plank the affirmative adds such
further provisions as may be necessary to complete the implementation
of its plan.
ADVANTAGE - refers to the benefits or gains that the affirmative claims, which
must be show to outweight the disadvantage.
The Affirmative must:
• careful to link the advantages to the plan.
• demonstrate that the advantages are caused by the plan.
• unique to the plan.
• cannot be obtained by other factors outside the scope of the plan.
-The affirmative must be able to prove a net gain . It must prove
that the advantages outweight the disadvantage.
TURNAROUND ARGUMENTS
•LINK TURNS
•IMPACT TURNS
•DOUBLE TURNS
TOPICALITY -is certainly a critical issue, often the single most
important issue in the debate. -an a priori issue.
PREPARATION -prepare briefs - short speech segment -
that they will use to refute negative attacks and to
extend affirmative arguments.
EXTENSIONS -consist of new evidence and analysis to
carry forward arguments introduces earlier.
Affirmative advocates of both value and policy propositions have
the burden of proof; they must take the offensive and mount a
strong attack to advance their case.
-debate does not take place in a vacuum and that an able
negative will mount strong attacks against the affirmative.
-In building their case, advocates have to anticipate the
probable areas of nega- tive attack
Prudent affirmatives will consider the most likely and effective
attacks against their case and build in reasonable defensive
provisions. An axiom of debate is that a good case defends
itself, and the well-planned case is built to provide for the
maximally effective self-defense
•Traditional debate approaches refer to the conventional methods
and structures used in debating
•Critical approaches -focus on philosophical and value-based
interpretations of propositional terms
•performance-based approaches find clash in music, visual
communication, role playing, and other creative forms of self
expression.
•Conventional approaches typically involve structured
formats and rules to facilitate respectful and productive
discussions.
