|
The affirmative must demonstrate not only that there is a problem, but that their plan will work to solve the problem. Realistically, if there was a viable (workable) solution to the problems, then our lawmakers would have already implemented the policy and there wouldn't be a need to debate. Solvency, therefore, should be one of the primary targets for a negative attack.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Cross-Examination of the 1NC is an excellent time to press the affirmative into making solvency commitments. If they make strong commitments to solvency, then they will open themselves up to major disadvantages. If they fail to commit themselves to specifics, then they open themselves up for strong solvency attacks. If they waiver or are reluctant to answer CX questions then they loose credibility. Sample CX questions include: What is your inherent barrier? What resources will you commit to administer this plan? How will your policy be enforced? Has this plan been tried before? What guarantee do we have that your planks will work?
Return to top
Return to main directory
What single factor prevents the problems being solved right now? Affirmatives must (1) identify the inherent barrier and (2) show how their plan will remove the barrier. Failure to do either will result in a negative ballot. Without knowing why a problem exists, we do not know that the new policy will solve the problem. Before attempting to develop a new policy, the Affirmative must identify why the old policy fails. Since they fail to identify an inherent barrier, they cannot demonstrate solvency and, therefore, a negative ballot is warranted. Although the affirmative identifies an inherent barrier, their plan fails to remove the barrier. Affirmative planks are aimed at the symptoms not the cause of the problem. Placing a Band-Aid over a gaping wound will do nothing more than hide the alleged problem; and, if the harms are real, the patient will bleed to death. Failing to remedy the inherent barrier denies solvency, and, therefore, a negative ballot is warranted.
Return to top
Return to main directory
If the affirmative cannot meet the needs or achieve the advantages they claim in their case, then they have failed to justify the resolution and there is no need for adopting their proposal. Administrative Deficiencies: Does the affirmative plan provide for sufficient administrative personnel, adequate expertise or technology, and enough funding? (If you can sway the Affirmative into spending resources, you will better be able to bolster the impact of your cost disadvantages. If they are unwilling to commit resources, then you can bolster your solvency arguments. If they fail to commit to either, then charge them with vagueness and refusing to reveal information needed to refute their position.) Enforcement: How will the affirmative guarantee that its policies will be enforced? (A simple CX question would be comprised of: "What new enforcement measures will be adopted to ensure compliance?" If normal means, "Haven't Americans always desired . . .? and why hasn't normal means already enforced those beliefs?" If other means, be sure to pin the affirmative down on specifics.) Precedents: Has this policy been tried before? and what were the results? (A simple CX question would be comprised of: "Has this plan, or any of its components, been tried before?" If not, "Why?" and "What guarantees do we have that it will work?" If yes, "Why didn't it work?" or "Why was it discontinued?" If the negative can find examples of where the components of the plan have been tried, but failed, they have a strong weapon to disprove solvency. )
Return to top
Return to main directory
Plan Meets Need (PMN) or Plan Meets Advantage (PMA) arguments have two primary purposes: (1) to minimize the impact of Affirmative's significant harms, or (2) to demonstrate that the Affirmative's plan is absolutely nonsolvent. The four basic designs include: Alternate Causality: Does the Affirmative address the real cause of the problem? Negative demonstrates that the harms are caused by a problem other than those identified by the Affirmative - the problems are caused by something else. Future Impact: Will the Affirmative's plan cure the problem once and for all? Negative demonstrates that the plan will only produce short-term results. The Affirmative's proposal is a Band-Aid approach that only covers the problem - it has cosmetic value only and does not solve the real problem. Circumvention: Does the Affirmative plan remove all barriers that prevent solvency? Fiat power only circumvents the problems that prevent solving the harms. Fiat may remove the barrier that prevents adopting the plan, but it does not remove the attitudes that will work to undermine the plan. PMN Disadvantage: Will messing with the problem make it better or worse? That the Affirmative's attempt to solve the problem will actually make the problem worse.
Return to top
Return to main directory
PMN and PMA attacks should be well labeled and structured: Failing to address the true cause of the problem, the Affirmative invokes Alternate Causality. The true cause of Chinese Human Rights violations can be found in their cultural history, not lack of American resolve to enforce Western views on Human Rights. (Add evidence & explanation.) Without addressing the true cause of the problem, the Affirmative cannot demonstrate solvency.
Return to top
Return to main directory