Affirmative
What does the affirmative have that the Negative doesn't have?
A plan.
When the negative explains that there is no problem what is that called?
No-Inherency
What is the plan for the Affirmative?
Plan: The United States Federal Government should impose an arms embargo against the Saudi-led Coalition.
dbeta si na yicativt nda a tospr.
Debate is an activity and a sport.
What do the authors Gramer and Seligman write about?
U.S. is determined to keep selling arms to Saudi Arabia, as indicated by recent actions.
What does the author, Chantal Da Silva, write about in the case?
The Aff’s Plan will not solve global distrust of current U.S. leadership.
What is the 1st No- Harms argument made in the Negative Files?
Times Have Changed -- American leadership is not needed or effective
hawt era het wot isesd fo bdteagni?
What are the two sides of debating?
Why does the Affirmative have to bring up harms?
To explain what needs to be solved by the plan.
What are two reasons you can give about why your argument is better and explain what you mean?
1. Evidence is more reliable
It is updated and the author is more qualified.
2. Evidence is more specific
It addresses the things being debated better because there are detailed explanations.
Where is this stated, "If the port at Hodeidah is destroyed, that could create an absolutely catastrophic situation," Guterres says"?
Hint: (Affirmative)
Doucleff 18 (page 7)
mshra si who het fafmiraitev xplniaes htwa eht npla lilw oslev.
Harms is how the Affirmative explains what the plan will solve.
Why is this, "The Trump Administration continues to sell more weapons to the Saudi-led Coalition, with no plans to stop" the Inherency?
This is the inherency because the inherency is the problem and they are saying that the Saudi-led Coalition is bad so selling more weapons to them is an issue.
What is this, "Current U.S. Administration not interested in improving U.S. credibility and leadership", and why is it what it is?
It is a No-Solvency argument.
It is a No-Solvency argument because it is saying that since it isn't even something that is a priority or even something the U.S. is interested in then the plan can't solve for it.
Where is this stated, "The Saudi-led intervention may have exacerbated the situation in Yemen, but it did not start the war."?
Why is this important?
Michael Knights et. al 19 (page 8)
Discuss with the students, there isn't just one right answer.
rfuetngi si eht pmriayr boj fo eht getnavei.
Refuting is the primary job of the negative.
What does this, "Lack of commitment to human rights undermines U.S. credibility and leadership -- makes it harder to influence other nations" have to do with the case and what does it mean?
(Explain in a few sentences/ Short Description)
The Affirmative already said that not doing anything would hurt U.S. credibility and leadership, this card is explaining that more. It is saying how because this is true, it will make it harder for the U.S. to influence other countries which is bad.
What does this, "The Aff’s Plan will not solve global distrust of current U.S. leadership", have to do with the case? What argument can you pull from here?
It explains how Trump has already disrupted the U.S.'s leadership so the Affirmative plan can't solve for it.
Where is this stated, " American power, once a trump card, is now a wild card. Instead of a superpower that wants to impose stability and values on a fractious and valueless global order, the U.S. has become the single biggest source of international uncertainty."?
One person recite the names of everyone in your group (No hints allowed when you decide to raise your hand, so learn well)
(Negative)
Ian Bremmer 16 (page 11)
Respond, after you unscramble.
hyw si vecnsyol enedde ni hte fiefrmavit?
Why is the solvency needed in the Affirmative?
It will explain how the plan solves and what that looks like.