What is debate?Debate is an academic and scholastic competition that pits two teams against each other to discuss a topic. One side will support changes to the topic (the affirmative) and one side will advocate for the current system or status quo (negative). As a competitor you will debate both sides. In one round you may be affirmative, in the next you may be negative. Because debate has evolved over many years it has developed a language of its own. Learning how to debate is a process that involves learning the language, learning your strengths and weaknesses, and dedicating yourself to a process of trial and error. Debates are centered around a topic, known as a resolution. The resolution determines what the boundaries of a debate are, but it does not dictate what can be said in the round.

For example: Past resolutions have been 2009-2010: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure. 2008-2009: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba.

Using the example of transportation infrastructure one could write a case advocating for increased bike lanes, the building of magnetic trains for public transportation, or even the building of roads with a new type of asphalt.Consider the resolution like the base of a tree, it has many branches and directions that the debater can choose to center the debate around. A good negative debater will be prepared for and ready to counter any potential case. Again, debate has evolved a language of its own. Understanding this language is a big part of learning to debate successfully. This brief will explain the general terms of the language and provide examples of the various positions in their different stages of construction.

Cutting Cards:The process of formulating positions and logging evidence is called- cutting cards. Cutting cards is essential to winning debates. Cards allow a debater to site research by name, date, source or publication, title, and author qualifications without having to read the entire article- or even paragraph in the round. This ensures that debaters positions and arguments are backed by qualified scholars in the fields they are representing and creates a clash in the round between competing literature. Cards also allow an undergraduate college student access to the words of much more qualified professionals in the specific field. Rather than relying on a freshman debaters opinion of nuclear proliferation we can quote the Secretary of Defense. Quoting professionals directly means a lot less memorization for debate than many of its forensic event counterparts. However it is a debaters job in the round to explain how their cards function against the opposition teams. This means debaters must know their evidence inside and out and know when and how to apply it. Evidence is cut into cards through a specific formula that judges expect to hear and all competitors use. It is the way all evidence should be cut when researching. Title. Tag Line. Citation. Evidence. Underline or Highlighted portion of evidence to be read.

Title: This tells the judge what type of card it is and how it functions with the others in the argument.Tag Line: This is the claim that this card will prove. Citation: The citation should include the authors name, article title, publication or source, and the date,as well as the authors qualifications. It is important to note that you don't always have to read the authors qualifications aloud, but when available- you must have them. Evidence: Your research that has been selected for your position. Usually a paragraph or two.Highlight: The portion of your evidence that will be read aloud. It should form completesentences and a cohesive thought and flow. It should never be taken out of context or fail to represent the tag line.

The Construction of Affirmative Cases:

The construction of your affirmative case is one of the most important things a debater will research throughout the course of a year. Because you will be affirmative in almost 50% of the rounds you debate, creating a solid affirmative secures you a great shot at 50% of your rounds. As a negative it is very difficult to predict what affirmative case will be ran by your opponent and in some rounds very few of your positions will apply. The affirmative almost always applies and for this reason it is a great place to invest a lot of your research and time.

Beginning the Construction of your Affirmative:

Because your affirmative case will be the backbone of half of your debates it is essential you pick something you are generally interested in. Even if you don't like the resolution's topic, find a way to craft it to suit your interests. The affirmative will require substantially more research time and reading than will nearly all other positions- pick something you will enjoy learning about. By the time the season is over you will be an expert on this topic.

For example if the resolution is: (2010-2011) Be it resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill.

If you are interested in public policy than analyze the governments current healthcare for the chronically mentally ill and determine a more efficient approach- perhaps current healthcare methods are underfunded, subject to corruption, or to vague/precise

If you are interested in science or medicine- find a new drug that is very promising for the chronically mentally ill and research it or subsidize it. Or find an old drug that is very harmful and ban it.

If you are interested in foreign policy than analyze how US peacekeeping missions help those who have chronic mental illness or how the US government contributes to chronic mental illnesses in other nations.

If you are interested in the military than analyze how US military branches support those with chronic mental illness and suggest a new approach.

If you are interested in psychology/sociology than choose a specific population- perhaps school children or prisoners and evaluate how current means help those with chronic mental illness and suggest a new or varied approach.

No matter what you are interested in you will find an area of the resolution that you can research and debate with conviction. It is important you enjoy your specific area of the resolution because you will be spending a lot of time reading and cutting cards about it. The more you are interested the easier it will be to defend and sound persuasive when speaking about it in the round.

The Affirmative Format:

The affirmative case format is very specific and important to your success. An affirmative must include four things. It should start by addressing what the current problem is (Blame), explain what the harms are as a result (Ill), propose a plan to end those harms (Cure - Plan), and finally prove that it can solve those harms (Cure - Solvency). A typical affirmative has between 7-10 cards (sources) and is delivered in a 7-9 minute speech.

The Affirmative Starting Point: Blame

Blame is one of the burdens an affirmative must prove to demonstrate there is a problem that needs to be solved for. Before an affirmative can speak of the harms or ills they must first establish that there is a failure to address the ill. A case must prove that the plan has not already been passed and is not currently being used. There are typically 2 types of Blame cards. Structural being the most preferred, Attitudinal can be used but is weaker in defense

Structural Blame: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan. Attitudinal Blame: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan.

Almost all affirmatives begin with a Blame card. Typically only one card is needed, but it is not uncommon to hear two cards.

Example 1: The following example was used for the 2008-2009 resolution. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba. This case proposed returning the land that the Guantanamo Bay detention center sat on in order to begin the process of constructive engagement. It claimed ending harms based around two scenarios; the presence of a US detention center actually increasing terrorist recruitment, and imperialism- the belief that the land was uniquely Cuban and the US did not legally own it and must return it to engage. Blame: 1) US officials have no plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Julian E. BarnesThe Los Angeles Times July 04, 2008Title: White House debates future of GuantanamoThe officials said the administration was not on the verge of shutting down Guantanamo. But the legislation under debate could make it easier to move some suspects to the United States by lessening the risk that federal courts would set them free in Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., or Charleston, S.C.

Last month? Supreme Court decision granting federal courts the power to review the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo has thrown the administration? detainee policy into doubt. Administration officials have been debating how best to react to the ruling, which restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. This was the third time the high court had rejected the administration? attempts to hold detainees indefinitely without allowing them full access to civilian courts.

The administration would like to keep at Guantanamo the 80 prisoners it intends to try under military commissions and wants to jump-start those tribunals. Uncertain, though, is the fate of an additional 120 prisoners; the military believes they are too dangerous to release but lacks the evidence to try them.

One of the proposals under consideration, according to officials, would allow regular judicial review of those prisonersdetention. The proposal would include legislation ensuring that if a court finds that they should no longer be considered ?nemy combatants,they would not be released but could be held while deportation procedures are begun.

Top Bush administration officials met this week to discuss the fate of Guantanamo and to debate various approaches.

On one side are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who believe that the United States should move to close Guantanamo. On the other side are Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey and Vice President Dick Cheney, who believe that closing the facility is impractical.

Getting any legislation through Congress is likely to be difficult. Republicans may be reluctant to pass anything that moves toward closing Guantanamo, especially if it means moving suspected terrorists to the United States. Liberal Democrats may be reluctant to sanction any sort of long-term detention without trial, arguing that it is an unnecessary infringement of civil liberties.Analysis:This card is quasi structural but mostly attitudinal. It explains that legislation (the structural barrier or element) is not going to happen, but it explains this is because of the attitudes of Republicans. This card gives multiple warrants as to how both republicans and democrats will not agree on such legislation and builds a solid story of both structural and attitudinal Blame for the affirmative. Example 2:This example was used for the 2009-2010 resolution. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure. This was a Blame card for a case that reformed the funding mechanism for all transportation projects allocated through the Federal Governments Highway Bill. The case advocated for increased funding to public transportation solving harms related to pollution (less cars) and transportation inequality (people in poverty had more accessible transportation to get them to work, healthcare, etc). Blame:1) Federal policy and funding fail to adequately support public transportation.

Transportation for AmericaStranded at the Station: The Impact of Financial Crisis in Public TransportationAugust 2009Title: http://transportationequity.org/images/stories/documents/081809_stranded_at_thestation.pdfWith both the demand and the pay-off so high, now would seem to be the time to build on this success and expand transit options, yet the opposite is happening. State and local budget cuts have put public transit agencies everywhere under tremendous pressure, forcing them to eliminate service, raise fares and lay off workers. While the depth of the funding crisis is the result of the unusually severe economic downturn, the cuts to this essential service underscore a basic truth: The funding base for building and operating public transportation is insufficient and vulnerable.

Financial support from states and localities is important, but they cannot do it on their own. As with all transportation systems in the U.S. whether highways, airports, or transit -- federal policy and funding determine whether any given mode reaches its potential. Currently, the federal government devotes 82 cents of every transportation dollar to roads and 18 percent to public transportation. Federal policy requires local taxpayers to match each federal dollar for public transportation with a dollar of their own, while requiring only a quarter match for roads. The federal government provides formula funding to localities, but does not give them the flexibility to spend it as needs dictate; rather, it requires them to spend on equipment and construction, even if the pressing need is for money to preserve services in an economic downturn.

Analysis: This card is an good example of structural Blame. It clearly contends that it is Federal policy and funding that determine public transportation projects and goes on to say that this formula is broke, insufficient, and vulnerable- providing the affirmative an excellent transition into their plan text. While some Blame cards may specify the exact bill blocking the affirmative plan (a great card indeed) it is not essential to structural blame. The fact that this clearly outlines federal policy as the reason public transport is being cut by state and local budgets is proof enough of a structural barrier.

The Affirmative Advocacy: Plan Text

Developing your plan text is essential as it is the starting ground for all negative attacks. A poorly written plan text can cost debaters the round. A plan should be brief but descriptive of the who, what, when, where, and hows of your affirmative case. Evidence is not read in plan. Evidence supporting the plan is typically considered part of the last element of an affirmative, solvency.

The affirmatives plan text is guaranteed to become law and go into full effect if and when the judge votes for the affirmative, this is known as the power of fiat. Fiat is from the latin word let it be done This means anything the affirmative presents with evidence supporting will be guaranteed. This prevents the argument that this wont really happen because we are just playing a game as college students or that it is impossible in the 'real world'. In a debate round you imagine what is being said as if it is really on the policy-makers docket.

There are five types of planks that most Affirmative plans will have: mandates, agent/administration, funding, enforcement, and intent. Not all plans will have each and not all Affirmative teams will use these labels. But a number of these planks will almost always be recognizable within the plan text. And if a case is missing essential plan elements such as funding- they will certainly open themselves up to the negative argument that because there is no funding they cannot do the plan.

The five elements to a plan are:

Mandates: The basic provisions of what the plan should accomplish. Every plan will have mandates. They are the reforms that the Affirmative team is proposing; they are the actions that will put the Affirmative resolution into effect. This is where you describe what needs to happen to solve your harms.

Agency/Administration: Define who is to carry out and execute the Affirmative plan. Will it be passed by congress, the supreme court, will there be a new federal committee assembled, will existing regulatory or oversight committees be involved?

Enforcement: What agency will be responsible for maintaining the plan and having oversight over its mandates. Is an existing government branch such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), USAID (foreign aid program), or Department of Defense responsible for implementing and following through with the plan?

Funding: Often funding is the most controversial plank of the plan. Not all plans need funding, but most need some source of money to put the mandates into effect. Funding planks are controversial because Negative teams will argue that any means the Affirmative uses to raise money is going to be counterproductive. The Affirmative is generally limited to three methods to finance their plan: (1) raising taxes, (2) redistributing money from current government programs, and (3) The most common both in debate and the policy world is deficit spending, known as normal means. You can use any or all of these to finance your plan. It is important that you have available an estimate of the cost of your plan, and an estimate of the money raised Negatives and the judge will certainly be interested in that information.

Intent: "The Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify intent" That phrase, or a close variation of it, is now fairly standard as the final part of every plan. It? an attempt to discourage Negatives from twisting the Affirmative? words to their own advantage. Usually, the intent plank makes no difference in the debate; Negatives find enough to attack in the plan without misinterpreting it.

Plan Example:

The following example is from a plan crafted for the 2009-2010 resolution. Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure. While some plans like to isolate each of the five elements the more common way is to do it in paragraph form. However you can discern each of the 5 elements of the plan text even when not specifically labeled. Setting up plan in paragraph form has become more common because it creates an easier to read understanding of the case. Also by reading it in paragraph form it is easier to explain the intricacies of the plan text. The plan is almost always in all bold type in order to emphasize its importance and remind the speaker to slow down and articulate its fine points. Bold type also makes it easier to locate during cross examination periods.

Plan: The United States Federal Government through an act of congress will pass the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act as a FIX IT FIRST policy (eliminating earmarks) and mandating section 1920 (to guarantee 30% of all work hours on federally funded transit projects are reserved for low-income, ex-offenders, women, and minorities) while also mandating 1% of all Surface Transportation Program funds are dedicated for workforce development (mandating section 23 USC 140). Funding through the existing SAFE-TEA avenues and the elimination of earmarks. Enforcement through the federal and state departments of transportation. The affirmative reserves the right to clarify intent.

Analysis:

Even in paragraph form we can pick apart the important parts of plan and evaluate whether the affirmative has a legitimate case plan.

Mandates: pass the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act as a FIX IT FIRST policy. Mandating section 1920. Dedicate 1% of all funds for workforce development.

Agency: The United States Federal Government through an act of congress will pass the...

Enforcement: Enforcement through the federal and state departments of transportation.

Funding: Funding through the existing SAFE-TEA avenues and the removal of earmarks.

Intent: The affirmative reserves the right to clarify.

It is also important to note how the plan includes parenthesis to clarify what the intricacies of the bill mean and how they actually function. A plan text should be as brief as possible while also explaining all of the key mandates in lay-persons terms. Developing ills or comparative advantage scenarios:Affirmatives typically generate their most persuasive reasons to vote for their plan through well-developed harms or ills scenarios. These cards are essential to showing the judge the magnitude and impacts of the status quos continued failure to implement plan. Affirmatives generally construct harms scenarios or advantages. The difference here is in the tense, how they are presented, and the story the cards tell. Harms scenarios are typically a collection of cards that indicate a range of terrible things that are currently happening in the world. Whereas advantages are tailored and usually come in a 3 card formula. This formula consists of one card stating the harm happening now, the second indicating that without the affirmative plan it will get worse, and third an extrapolation of this impact to its maximum level.

Advantages are preferable to many because of their ability to access large impacts and function predicatively. However their drawback is that if any one of those 3 cards is dis-proven they are dramatically weaker. Harms scenarios are often much weaker but also more broad. Not having to read the three card formula means the debater can read 6-8 harms cards all giving him access to a variety of realistic identifiable impacts. This is a more defensive strategy and its drawbacks are that if the magnitude of the harms is not as large as the negatives arguments they can easily be outweighed.

The first example will be that of the typical 3 card advantage affirmative. It is from the 2008-2009 resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba. From a case that argued for returning Guantanamo Bay on the basis of three advantages imperialism, human rights, and the war on terrorism. This is a direct copy of the war on terror advantage.

Example One- The Advantage Format:Advantage _: The War on TerrorismA. Guantanamo fuels animosity toward the United States and is actually a recruiting tool for future terrorists. By Delegitimizing US moral authority it fuels the 'recuperative power' of the terrorist.Jennifer Daskal is an American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration. She is also currently a political hire at the Department of Justice, which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military tribunals.A graduate of Harvard Law School, Cambridge and Brown University and a Marshall ScholarWorld Policy Journal / Fall 2007 Page p29(9)Title: How to close Guantanamo.(Report).

This argument also assumes a fixed supply of low-level fighters and suicide bombers. If these men are kept out of circulation, then there will be fewer attacks on the United States or coalition partners. Or so the thinking goes.

But remember the counterinsurgency field manual. An insurgency like al Qaeda is not static, but fluid and dynamic. If the particular detainees in Guantanamo are kept out of circulation, others can--and will--fight in their place. The supply outstrips demand. The high-profile detentions of a few dozen potentially men in Guantanamo do little to make the United States safer. To the contrary, it delegitimizes U.S. moral authority, helps to fuel the "recuperative power" of the enemy, and undercuts critical efforts to win hearts and minds.

B. Guantanamo bay has crippled American moral credibility and hampered international cooperation critical to the War on Terror.Waxman, Matthew Waxman served under Condoleezza Rice in the National Security Council in 2001-2003. He served as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs in 2004 and 2005. Waxman moved from the Department of Defense to the Department of State in December 2005, serving there under Condoleezza Rice until 2007. The Washington Post / October 28, 2007Title: The Smart Way to Shut Gitmo Down

President Bush has said publicly that he would like to see Guantanamo Bay closed, if he could do so without putting Americans in greater danger. He can, and he should. My experience advising former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on these issues has convinced me that there's a way out, but it will take some painful truth-telling to get there. For even if Guantanamo Bay could be defended in legal or moral terms, it still hurts us more than it helps us in battling al-Qaeda.

I'm not trying to challenge the improvised decision to create Guantanamo Bay's detention site in 2002. Rather, I want to challenge its continued operation in 2007. Fair-minded people can differ over whether the Bush administration was justified in sending suspected al-Qaeda fighters there immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, but as time wears on it's almost impossible to argue that the prison is keeping us safer.

To solve our Gitmo problem, we need to understand it better. Unfortunately, amid all the rhetorical heat, Guantanamo Bay's defenders and detractors have gotten carried away. For example, the soothing notion among some critics that everyone at the prison is an innocent bystander erroneously swept up in post-9/11 dragnets is a fantasy. But so is the Bush administration's dogged insistence that all the detainees there are the "worst of the worst." Some of them should never have been there (including several supposed jihadists turned over for bounty based on assertions that later proved flimsy), and such imprisonments have had tragic and dangerous consequences.Likewise, the administration's critics are wrong to assert that we no longer gain valuable intelligence at Guantanamo Bay. But we should not exaggerate the value of the current information-gathering there either, which often comes from detainees who haven't been involved in terrorist plotting for years now. And while the improved general conditions I repeatedly saw are humane by the standards of U.S. and European prisons, Guantanamo Bay's defenders hurt their own credibility when they refuse to acknowledge the well-documented abuse that has occurred there.

Yes, Guantanamo Bay has incapacitated many al-Qaeda plotters and has given the U.S. government a better picture of the enemy. But those benefits came at a serious cost. On balance, the prison -- and the widespread perception that it exists simply to keep detainees forever beyond the reach of the law -- has become a drag on America's moral credibility and, more to the point, its global counterterrorism efforts, too.

For example, the continued controversy over Guantanamo Bay has hampered cooperation with our friends on such critical counterterrorism tasks as information sharing, joint military operations and law enforcement. I know: As a State Department official, I often spent valuable time anddiplomatic capital fruitlessly defending our detention practices rather than fostering counterterrorism teamwork. Guantanamo Bay leaves us playing defense and hinders our ability to play effective offense. C. Guantanamo has exploded our concept of "enemy combatants" in the "global war" and has made the entire world a battlefield.

Jennifer Daskal is an American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration. She is also currently a political hire at the Department of Justice, which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military tribunals.A graduate of Harvard Law School, Cambridge and Brown University and a Marshall ScholarWorld Policy Journal / Fall 2007 Page p29(9)Title: How to close Guantanamo.(Report).Consider the dubious legal claims behind the Guantanamo detainees. The Bush administration has defended Guantanamo by claiming that the detainees are "enemy combatants" in the "global war" against terror, and that it can hold them without trial until the war is over. Its definition of "combatant" is so broad as to encompass anyone--from anywhere around the world--whom the president deems to have supported or associated with the terrorist enemy. This theory turns the entire world into a battlefield for whom any alleged terrorist is a "combatant" who can be held until the end of terrorism under the laws of war. Of note, combatants are also legitimate military targets under the laws of war. Taken to its logical conclusion, this overbroad conception of combatant would permit U.S. forces to fire on sight at any suspected terrorist anywhere they find him.

Harms Examples: The next example is from the 2009-2010: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure. These harms come from the SAFE-TEA plan text shown as the example for plan. The case argues that funding for the nations transportation needs to be reallocated to create more jobs and secure better equality for those employed in the transportation construction industries. The harms will illustrate the negative consequences of the status-quo (current system). However, unlike the advantage format- there is no three card format. Harms are typically just listed out as the debater prefers. There are usually 6-8 harms cards, below is an example of a few of those harms included in the SAFE-TEA affirmative.

_) There is currently an exodus of manufacturing jobs in central cities- if current trends continue extinction of the manufacturing industry in central cities is inevitable.Federal Reserve Bank of ChicagoJuly 6, 2006Title: Manufacturing Exit Tough On Small CitiesIf current trends continue, manufacturing activity will soon become extinct as a part of central city economies. The reasons for this exodus are largely the result of shifts in the technology of many types of production activity. Central cities specially in the Midwest and Northeast are generally densely populated and somewhat congested. Such conditions are not ideal for production activity. Many central cities vigorously attempt public policies to preserve manufacturing jobs, but the opposing forces appear to be very strong.

At one time, many central cities were the preferred locale for manufacturers. The reasons can be boiled down to two, transportation of laborers and transportation of materials.

_) The American economy is not providing enough jobs to support its families; leading to communities with high levels of poverty, social problems, crime, teen pregnancy, and welfare dependencyTodd SwanstromTransportation Equity Network / August 30, 2007Title: The Road to Jobs: Patterns of Employment in the Construction Industry In Eighteen Metropolitan AreasThe American economy does not provide enough good jobs that can support afamily. A major reason for this is the decline in relatively high paying manufacturing jobs. Between 1979 and 2003 employment in manufacturing in the United States fell from 19.4 million (21.6 percent of the workforce) to 14.5 million (only 11.2 percent of the workforce). The loss of well paying industrial jobs has been especially damaging in Midwestern cities. Between 1977 and 2002, for example, Chicago lost 268,400 manufacturing jobs (-73.3 percent), Cleveland lost 90,900 jobs (-75.2 percent), and Cincinnati lost 44,400 jobs (-68.9 percent). The burdens of deindustrialization and stagnating wages have fallen disproportionately on African Americans and Hispanics. In 2003, for example, the median wage for black men was only 73 percent of the white male median wage; Hispanic men made only 63 percent of whites. The unemployment rate for blacks in 2003 was twice that of whites; the unemployment rate for Hispanics (black and white) was almost 50 percent higher than for whites. High rates of unemployment and low wages have reduced the number of men who marry, leaving many women to raise children on their own. Female-headed households suffer disproportionately from poverty and the children who grow up in those households generally do not do as well in school. Communities with high levels of poverty and unemployment suffer from social problems, including high rates of crime, teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, and welfare dependency.

_) The Construction Industry is systemically excluding minorities with recruitment embedded in ethnic and family ties.Todd SwanstromTransportation Equity Network / August 30, 2007Title: The Road to Jobs: Patterns of Employment in the Construction Industry In Eighteen Metropolitan Areas

African Americans have been systematically excluded from better paying skilledtrades ever since slavery was abolished. The construction industry is no exception. Black employment in construction has been concentrated in the unskilled and poorly paid parts of the industry, such as hod carriers, helpers, and laborers. Discrimination in the construction industry has been especially difficult to overcome because recruitment is embedded in tight family and ethnic connections. In some cities, for example, the Tile Workers Union was dominated by Italians and the Sheet Metal Workers Union by Scots, Irish, and Germans. Many sons followed their fathers into the trades. Some unions simply outlawed black membership, but most relied on informal networks to guarantee jobs to friends and family of the same race and often the same ethnicity.

Solvency:Now that you have shown that there is a problem that is not being solved (Blame), shown the consequences of the failure to take action (Ills/Advantages of taking action) and proposed a plan, you must prove that your plan can work. Solvency cards are the golden cards of affirmative research. Very often the idea to construct an affirmative case comes when someone stumbles on an amazing solvency card. Solvency cards should be directly tailored to your plan text, that is- if your plan text advocates passing law 123 then your solvency card should specifically mention the benefit of passing law 123. The more specific your solvency cards are the better. Whether using the 3 card advantage formula or the harms list- it is essential that your solvency cards prove that you solve for every advantage or end every harm. Examples: From the 2008-2009 resolution- Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba. This case argued that we needed to return Guantanamo Bay. Advantages claimed were Imperialism, soft power, human rights, and terrorism.

_) Solvency: Returning Guantanamo would have an explosive impact throughout Latin America. The single most transformative act of goodwill that the U.S could make! Guaranteeing a return of positive actions from Havana. Kira Vinke COHA Research AssociateCouncil on Hemispheric Affairs March 4th, 2009 Revamping U.S.-Cuban Politics: Playing the Guant?amo Card in a Game of Constructive Diplomacy- 106 years of American occupation of Guant?amo Bay is long enough- Obama signs order to close torture facility, but remains silent about the base? future- Reversion of the obsolescent facility to Cuba is essential for the normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations as well as rehabilitation of Latin-American tiesIn recent months, media coverage of Guant?amo Bay has focused on the relocation and plans for the prosecution of detainees now housed there by the United States government. But there is another issue that all but goes unaddressed - the legitimacy of the U.S. naval base? very presence along the southeastern coastline of Cuba. This issue has not yet been even cursorily explored. On January 22, President Obama signed an executive order that called for the closure of the Guant?amo Bay detention camp within one year. This would remove the sole remaining function of the base that served as an internment camp for suspected terrorists, and therefore also would provide the Obama administration with good reason to reconsider returning the land itself to Cuba, its rightful and legal owner.Returning Guant?amo to effective Cuban sovereignty as part of a normalization of relations with Cuba would have an explosive impact throughout Latin America. It would be the single most transformative act of goodwill that the U.S. could make, and would be sure to bring in return a range of positive actions on Havana? part. Furthermore, Washington? release of the Cuban Five (jailed Cubans presently serving lengthy prison terms after very controversial trials before Federal District Judge Joan Lenard one of the most contentious judicial figures in the country) could win the release of all political prisoners presently being held in Cuba.Analysis: This is a good card because it doesn't just speak of closing the base- as some advantages do- but gets right to the heart of returning the land, essential for a strong imperialism advantage. It is also a top notch card for the soft-power advantage- as it literally says ?he singlemost transformative actthese key phrases are great in your affirmative as judges can recall them later in the round. It is also an incredibly short card considering how much it is able to warrantExample:This example is also from the 2008-2009 Cuba topic area and was used with the same case as the previous example. _) Solvency: Now is the time to vote Aff- A great shift in policy will cost nothing!Marvin Kalb a James Clark Welling Presidential Fellow at The George Washington University and Edward R. Murrow Professor Emeritus at Harvard? Kennedy School of Government. Global PostFebruary 24, 2009The Future of Cuba :Is Barack Obama Missing A Golden Opportunity Indeed, one of Barack Obama? first proclamations as president was to announce the closure of the Guantanamo detention center within a year.Good for Obama he was fulfilling a campaign pledge. But bad for Obama he was thinking small, when he had (and still has) the opportunity to turn a dusty old page in Cuban-American relations and return Guantanamo to Cuba. That? right return the entire naval base to Cuba!Remember Cuba? It? that banana-shaped island 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Fifty years ago, Fidel Castro led a successful Marxist revolution against the autocratic corruption of Fulgencio Batista, and for a time he was the hero of the left until he became a Soviet puppet and Cuba a Soviet satellite. In 1962, the world hovered on the brink of nuclear war, when then-President John F. Kennedy challenged Moscow? decision to install nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba.Kennedy won that showdown. When the Soviet Union later collapsed in 1991, Cuba lost its ideological sponsor and its major supplier of oil, food and military hardware. Cuba entered what it called the ?pecial period,a time of political retrenchment and economic disintegration that has dramatically worsened in the current global crisis. Now, Cuba has become the orphaned basket case of the Caribbean, an isolated relic of the Cold War struggling to find a new identity under Raul Castro, who assumed dictatorial powers on Feb. 24, 2008, after his older brother, Fidel, became seriously ill.When asked about returning Guantanamo, Washington officials are usually wide-eyed in wonder and surprise. Why reward Raul by returning Guantanamo to Cuba, they ask, when he remains a communist dictator and has flashed no serious sign of democratic reform? Why abandon a first-rate naval base, the oldest overseas base in America? arsenal? Why now? Let him take the first steps toward Cuban-American reconciliation, I? told; and then we can consider reciprocal actions on our timetable.I appreciate their caution but believe now is the time for radical change in America? Latin American policy. The U.S. has a new administration, led by a young, visionary president who has excited the world with his promise of an ?pen handforeign policy. If he were to look beyond the encrusted habits of the Cold War and think, for example, about returning Guantanamo to Cuba, he would be sending a refreshing signal to the people of Cuba and to all of Latin America that, indeed, change has come to American policy. And it would cost the U.S. nothing.

Analysis: This is a great card because it prioritizes the affirmative, and says now is the time for radical change This gives the judge a reason why now, more than 3 months ago or 2 years from now, is the time to vote. Additionally the card goes on to say that it would cost the U.S. nothing. Cards that detail the cost benefits of your plan, especially when its free with a whole lot of benefit are amazing. And while it may not always be free- the question of cost will almost certainly come up from the negative in cross examination. Again this card is short and direct and uses rhetorical questions to detail the emphasis- something that will help the judge or audience remember the card. Example:This example is from the 2009-2010 resolution- Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure.The plan text was: Plan: The United States Federal Government through an act of congress will pass the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act as a FIX IT FIRST policy (eliminating earmarks) while also mandating 1% of all Surface Transportation Program funds be dedicated for workforce development (mandating section 23 USC 140).

_) Solvency: Mandating a 1% utilization of funds for workforce development would generate 1.43 billion for workforce development.Todd SwanstromTransportation Equity Network / August 30, 2007Title: The Road to Jobs: Patterns of Employment in the Construction Industry In Eighteen Metropolitan AreasFederal Level

Currently, federal transportation law (23 USC 140) allows states to utilize up to of 1% of Surface Transportation Program (federal highway) funds for workforce development. This provision should be made mandatory and extended to all federal transportation projects, including public transit. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), which became law in August of 2005, funds more than $244 billion in highway and transit spending over a five-year period, from 2005 through 2009. Until recently, only Maine and South Carolina have used the provision that allows of 1% of federal highway funds to be utilized for targeted recruitment, training, pre-apprentice programs, and other workforce development initiatives. Maine? DOT works with a local non-profit organization called Women? Unlimited to ensure that federal monies are funneled toward recruitment, training, and placement of women in construction work jobs. We recommend that the of 1% provision be extended to all federal transportation projects, including public transit. If this provision were applied to all SAFETEA-LU spending, it would generate $1.43 billion for workforce development.

Analysis: When your plan text specifies a certain law, code, or bill that it advocates it is very important that you have a card identifying that specific bill, code, or law and explaining why it is essential to solvency. This card in the example is key to the affirmative strategy because it tells you US Code 140 is capable of generating 1.43 billion dollars for workforce development. There should be at least one card in your solvency that says we need to do exactly what your plan lays out- this is your solvency advocate. Many cases begin with a single solvency advocate card that the affirmative researcher realizes can be made into an amazing affirmative.