Affirmative Strategy

The affirmative team must demonstrate a harm in the status quo, present a plan that solves the harm, and prove that there is an inherent barrier that prevents the plan from happening in the status quo. Their plan must fall within the resolution, i.e. “topicality”. This keeps debate fair because all affirmative plans should be reasonably within the same topic.

The affirmative must have the following:

• Inherency: The status quo must not be capable of solving the harms asserted in the case. This means that there are currently no programs that could solve the plan.
• Advantages: Advantages are essentially reasons why the plan is good, and what would happen if the plan if it isn’t passed. They are set up in this format:

• Link - Reason why the plan could solve for a certain benefit
• Internal Link - The events that could occur if that certain benefit is not solved for
• Impact - The final event that occurs from not passing the plan, i.e. war, genocide

• Solvency: The plan has to functionally solve and have evidence that it could possibly work. This prevents random, unqualified ideas.

Negative Strategy

Core Negative Case Issues:

The negative can argue the following things about the affirmative case specifically:

• Solvency: The affirmative plan does not solve for what it claims to solve
• Harms: The impacts or scenarios that the affirmative has laid out are not true or will not occur
• Inherency: The affirmative plan is not inherent, meaning that the plan has already happened
• Significance: The impact of the plan is not important enough
• Topicality: This argues whether or nor the plan falls under the topic.

Core Negative Off-Case Positions

Disadvantages: The negative claims that implementing the plan will have negative effects or disadvantages. These disadvantages outweigh the advantages of the plan. The parts of a Disadvantage are:

1. Uniqueness: shows that the disadvantage will not occur in the status quo
2. Link: states that passing the plan will cause the disadvantage to occur
3. Internal Link: states the events that would cause the impact 
4. Impact: the final effect of the affirmative plan

Kritiks: With kritiks, the negatives claim that the affirmative follow certain ideologies that should be rejected. This can either be against the case or advantages they read, as well as the certain mechanisms they use. Common kritiks are about capitalism, racism, and securitization. Kritiks provide alternatives to the plan, as in reforming or rejecting an ideology

Counterplans: The negative can introduce a different plan with better advantages or fewer disadvantages (net benefit) than the plan. Counterplans are used to avoid a certain disadvantage while at the same time solving case.

Theory: Sometimes the subject of the affirmative's case will create make it slightly unfair for the negative. The negative can oppose the procedure or content of the case by providing reasons why the affirmative makes debate unfair.

Sample Plan & Neg Strategy