What is the affirmative?
The affirmative’s job is to affirm the resolution. They do this through a “plan,” which is a proposal for a way the resolution can be implemented. For example, on the 2023-24 high school topic, a plan could be, “The United States federal government should substantially increase fiscal redistribution in the United States by providing a universal basic income funded by a wealth tax.” This statement is introduced somewhere within the 1AC (first affirmative constructive), and is called the plan text.
The affirmative must defend their plan and prove it is a good idea – this is called the burden of proof. The aff team proves the plan is a good idea through advantages. The aff’s set of advantages presented in the first constructive is generally referred to as “case.”
You can make an account on openCaselist, go to Open Ev Project, and see some examples of a 1AC (first affirmative constructive) here: https://opencaselist.com/openev/2023/aff. Open Ev Project is a collection of files produced by all the different debate summer camps. Look at affirmatives such as the “Federal Jobs Guarantee,” “Carbon Dividend,” or “Social Security” (it does not matter which camp they are from). Some other affirmatives here are a type of affirmative called K Affs, which will be discussed later.
Stock Issues
One way of viewing 1AC construction is through stock issues. While stock issues are a rather outdated framework of debate, they do provide a basis for the requirements of a 1AC (first affirmative constructive).
There are 5 stock issues: topicality, inherency, harms, significancy, and solvency.
Topicality: The aff plan is an example of the resolution (it is not outside the resolution).
Inherency: There is a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo.
Harms: The aff has impacts.
Significancy: Those impacts are important.
Solvency: The aff plan solves those impacts.
It is important to note that most of these terms will not be used in high-level national circuit debating. However, they are important to know not only in terms of 1AC construction, but also on the off-chance that you do have a more traditional judge who is a stock issues judge, or you debate on a more traditional local circuit. We will talk more about judge adaptation later.
Modern 1ACs are generally organized in the form of a plan text and several advantages, rather than the stock issues – but as you read through example 1ACs from openCaselist or elsewhere, try to identify how the 1AC meets each stock issue!
Advantages
An advantage is one reason that the plan is a good idea.
If you went through the “Federal Jobs Guarantee,” “Carbon Dividend,” or “Social Security” affirmative in openCaselist, you may have noticed that the vast majority of advantages have some kind of claim that follows this structure:
- A claim about the status quo.
- An “impact” to that status quo – in other words, a negative consequence that will arise in the status quo if action is not taken.
- How the affirmative’s plan stops that “impact” or negative consequence from happening.
For example, take a look at the file “Aff – Federal Jobs Guarantee – Michigan 7 2023 STARTER” on openCaselist. The first advantage is organized as follows:
This series of claims is called an “internal link chain.” Each causal claim – for example, inequality causes US breakdown, or US breakdown causes nuclear war – is called an internal link.
You might have been reading the cards and noticed that these claims are a bit far-fetched and the evidence doesn’t well support them – and you would be right! During a debate, you should keep your eye out for evidence that doesn’t support the opponent’s claims and point them out in your speech, although this should just be one of many arguments you have.
Soft Left Affs
Many affirmatives have impacts such as extinction, nuclear war, societal collapse, etc., as you saw above. These are informally called “big stick affirmatives,” as they have impacts which are extremely high in magnitude. However, there is another type of affirmative, called “soft left affirmatives,” whose impacts are lower in magnitude and largely revolve around structural violence – for example, poverty or sexism. However, they still follow the same structure of internal link chains, just like big stick affirmatives.