Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) is the second speech given by the affirmative team, the third speech in the round, given by the second affirmative speaker. The 2AC must answer all of the arguments read in the 1NC. If there is time remaining, the 2AC sometimes also includes add-ons, or additional advantage scenarios.
In policy debate (also called cross-examination debate in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the Affirmative is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution.
One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. [1] Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution.
The two teams will then have fifteen minutes to formulate the case they wish to present. At the end of the fifteen minutes the teams reconvene and begin the debate. The members of each team are referred to as the following; Leader of the Affirmative; Member of the Affirmative; Leader of the Negation; Member of the Negation
The case is the advocacy established by the Pro 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 ...
In competitive debate, an advantage is the way that the affirmative team refers to the positive consequences of adopting their position on the debate resolution.It is an argument structure that seeks to convince the judge that the affirmative plan, if adopted, would result in a net-beneficial improvement to the status quo.
Topicality: The Affirmative case must affirm the resolution, since that is the job of the Affirmative in a debate round. The Affirmative case often is shown to be within the bounds of the resolution as defined by appropriate definitions, or functional implementation or resolution instrumentality through the Affirmative plan. When the resolution ...
A notable example is the so-called "open motion" debate, where debaters are expected to come up with their own far-fetched interpretation of an ambiguous motion. A squirrel can also refer to an affirmative so obscure that there is no known negative against it. These cases are rare and will typically win the round for the affirmative team.