| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
 |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
In the policy debate form of debate competition, the case is the advocacy established by the affirmative in the First affirmative constructive speech, often constructed around the support of a policy recommendation known as the affirmative plan. While the 1AC defines the parameters for the bulk of an affirmative's argument, the term "case" can be used to cover the entirety of the affirmative argument more broadly, referring, for instance, to additional advantages, counter-arguments, or rebuttal evidence that might be introduced in later speeches (if at all.)
The Structure of the Case
The case, if done in the standard way, is generally organized into sections called "observations" or "contentions", with advantages attached.
Observation or Contention
A typical case includes between two and five observations/contentions, depending on the speed of the intended speaker and the length of the observations/contentions. Traditionally, observations/contentions address one of the stock issues and is labeled accordingly. For example:
- Contention 1: Inherency
- Contention 2: Harms
- Plan
- Contention 3: Solvency
Or:
- Observation 1: Inherency
- Plan
- Advantage 1
- Advantage 2
- Advantage 3
- Solvency
More recently, cases have included different names for the observation; for example, a case increasing the number of pilots in the United States Air Force might call the first contention "Air Power." Some observations/contentions are named even more strangely; there is a documented occurrence of a case about wildfire control with two observations: "Observation 1: We didn't start the fire" and "Observation 2: It's getting hot in here," the former dealing with inherency and harms, the latter with solvency.
Advantages
While some regions prefer affirmative cases to be organized around the "stock issues," others have stressed an emphasis on a "comparative advantage" style case construction. The primary difference between the two forms of cases is one of style and emphasis, though in many instances the information presented can be almost identical. A case built around "advantages" stresses the superiority of the plan (or broader affirmative advocacy) to the status quo, through a series of direct comparisons between the plan and the status quo. The impact calculus offered within advantages can vary widely across different cases. Some might argue that the plan effects a "policy" change for the better, or prevents something that is bad that the status quo all but guarantees. For instance, an advantage to a plan increasing the strength of United Nations peacekeeping operations in Kashmir could argue that such an operation would prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan. An advantage might also be more philosophical in nature. Loosely defined as "critical" or "kritikal" such advantages tend to be less utilitarian in nature, claiming either that there are philosophical problems with the status quo, for example, prevalent racism, heteronormativity/homophobia, patriarchy, militarism, which the plan can address, or that certain forms of analysis (for instance, Consequentialism) are on face immoral and should be rejected as possible tools to evaluate the affirmative case. Such an advantage might state that a military draft, by causing the mixing of people of all races and social classes, would reduce racism. Some more "critical" cases might also argue that the advocacy of the affirmative should not be reduced to the plan, opting instead to defend it as a "speech act" or "discourse" more holistically.
