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.
Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical.
Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making.
[This quote needs a citation] The difference between a vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly.
[citation needed] The ballot is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows the material with great depth and breadth.
Fiat (Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action.
Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from the debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted.
However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution.
Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that is different from policy debate.
From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides.
For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets.
An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory.
Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project?
Inherency is a stock issue in policy debate that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo.
Likewise, arguments by the Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the Affirmative either.
A judge refers to the individual responsible for determining the winner and loser of a policy debate round as well as assessing the relative merit of the speakers.
Judges must resolve the complex issues presented in short time while, ideally, avoiding inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality.
Otherwise, the Negative can kick the disadvantage, arguing it is a moot issue, by saying that economic collapse will not occur in the status quo, so the prevention of a non-existent event carries no advantage.
Topicality, although a stock issue, is universally considered an off-case argument, because it deals directly with the plan text rather than the evidence behind it.
Most judges consider monolithic plans theoretically legitimate although it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate.
At some collegiate tournaments, for example the University of Texas at Dallas, alternate use time is used giving the debaters a total of 16 minutes and eliminating the mandatory cross examination periods.
However, because most judges will not require the other team to answer, these questions are generally clarification oriented rather than combative, unlike those asked in cross-examination.
Many judges disapprove of using alternate use time for non-alternate use activities, for example asking questions of the other team or presenting more arguments.
For example, the Solvency that is bigger than the status quo Harms starts from the presumption that "small things have big impacts, such as a suitcase plutonium dirty bomb".
A "dirty, cheap" Harm such as a single microchip in a spy satellite has greater impact currently than its removal, in which the Solvency seems so insignificant.
However, the sheer amount of work and money in vying for preserving the status quo is the all-for-nothing Harms, and to make the removable of the spy satellite microchip seem insignificant with respect to the status quo makes the plan Solvency highly unique, highly significant, the "QED - quite easily done" simple task.
In Push Debate, topicality does not need extraordinary defense nor flimsy probing, and the traditional stock issue Significance is preserved if nothing could be done about Inherency that would be nontopical.
Solvency is a stock issue in policy debate, referring to the effectiveness of the affirmative plan or the negative counterplan in solving the harms or problems of the status quo.
Solvency can be reduced or undermined by certain arguments, e.g. corruption will prevent the plan from being implemented to the extent necessary to completely solve the harms.
An Affirmative Pocket Turn gets a boost in solvency, or captured advantage, at least over the status quo without any thought to the Negative.