2. Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES Rebuttal Speeches (1NR)- 4 MINUTES (1AR)- 4 MINUTES (2NR)- 4 MINUTES (2AR)- 4 MINUTES

3.  The affirmative must assume the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of the resolution.  There must be a change in policy suggested  The status quo cannot solve the harm without change  A substantial portion of the proof must be logical and non-artistic (evidence)  The negative has to uphold the burden of rejoinder (clash)

4.  Affirmative case is composed of two parts  Rationale  Plan  Rationale – reasons for adopting resolution  Plan – proposal for implementing policy and solving the problem

5.  S ignificance – the problem is of substance / impact  H arms –the problem  I nherency – prove that the problem is caused by system  P lan – the affirmative must provide a means to fix the harm  S olvency – plan will eliminate harm

6.  The problem impacts a large group of people or is widespread (cannot be just monetary)  The problem is caused by the existing policy, not an outside source  To say that the welfare system causes overpopulation is non-topical  To say that persons on welfare do not receive enough money to escape is topical

7.  To prove that the problem is directly tied to the existing system ( status quo )  Test the Significance/Harm by running it through a syllogism  If the negative can prove alternate causality then the affirmative loses.

8.  Plans are constructed of specific planks that will illustrate the feasibility of the change  Plank 1 – Mandates – How will the policy be changed  Plank 2 – Administration / Enforcement – Who will make the new policy happen  Plank 3 – Funding – How will the policy change be paid for  Plank 4 – Legislative intent – Sentence stating what the affirmative hopes will happen as a result of the new policy

9.  Illustrate through logic that your new plan will solve the problem you outlined in your significance / harms section

10.  Show any advantages that can be achieved by enacting your plan  This is essentially a ‘bonus’ for the voters

11.  Straight refutation – point by point analysis of Aff case  Topicality Argument – Aff is not talking about the MUC  DA – Disadvantage – if you accept the Aff position bad things will happen  Turns – Turning the Aff case against itself  CP – Counterplan – Solve the problem of the Aff case or the resolution without changing the system (MUC) (be non-topical)  Justification – Like Topicality & Inherency

12.  The responsibility of the affirmative to support the subject of the proposition.  If the proposition says “apples” and the affirmative talks about “oranges” they are not topical  i.e. The USFG should significantly alter the system of welfare in the US.  If you try to fix welfare by improving education then you are not topical.

13.  Attack stock issues:  Prove that # of people impacted or that the level of impact is not significant  Prove that people are not being harmed  Prove that the cause of the problem is not inherent to the system  Prove problem will not be solved with plan

14. Increase, etc. Decrease, etc. = same as, equal No, not Greater than Less than Change in Yield or to Fx effect I inherency S solvency T topicality P paradigm W/O without W/I within B/c because B/w between therefore $ money, cost, etc. A2 answers to-- response * drop (unanswered argument) SH significance / harms P Plan