 That is good. I can talk to you after this. Okay. Both of those are my changes. Could you, um, this audio, did you test to see if I could hear the audio from the distance? Yeah, we did. I'm sorry, I'm being awful. No, it's, I mean, it's not, it's not super fancy, but look at the job value. Alright. I found out, like, why in the TRI, the audio's taken out from the distance, so you have to put them on from it. Oh, it's so good. It's very rare. Well, it's, you know, self-considered, so it's good. Yeah. Oh, really? Yeah. Are you trying to tell them to go? No. Are they seeing how much of a noise they're willing to expect? I'm not a little bit of a fool. I was going to encounter people with some e-grain on their nose, but so we're in a blue crop. I am a little bit of a fool. Yes. I'm a little bit of a fool. I'm sorry. It's just a little bit of a mystery. So I don't see anything. Okay. Let's make it. That's a bit of a trick. I'm sure they'll thank you. Yeah. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Now, my separate audio is a little bit of a little silver. Yeah. I'm going to say something. So then it's really important to say, that I'm a new Disney team. That's how I'm going to have my mom. I am just easily convinced. Really? No. Okay. I'm a little bit of a lawyer. So the girl and it's hilarious because I'm so nervous. I'm too worried to play. I say it. She's too worried. I'm hot, rough, too worried. I'm trying to be a princess. I'm just trying to be a princess. I had a haircut. I'm curious she's not like my kind of princess. So your feet just came out real quickly. What's your actingili especially you're something that like you are entitled to find yourself dirty of blood, and like motherly organisms. Hi, I'm splashing. It's like sometimes things, I'm having trouble to holographis without talking. Let's see if it's computer 2. Yeah. I think it doesn't pop, that's fine. I'll just be popular about computer 1. You can just write it on the board. Your own computer. It's showing us computer 1. That's computer 1. It doesn't matter. You want to have a good run ball? Nope. You got markers at work? Yep. Hello, folks. How's everyone doing? Good. I'm Patrick from the Albo Valley College. I'm Christopher. I think that's my idea, but you can go check it. Let's see. Yep, you did it. So, everyone's brand new, right? Yes. You've never done this before. That's exciting. So what I gave you is a lot of vocabulary that probably is overwhelming right now, but don't worry about that. Talk it through, and I'm going to try to give you some everyday examples instead of really having debate examples to help you to understand what this all means. So, today we're going to talk about being affirmative and going affirmative on a debate case. And at the very top I have probably the most important thing to know is affirmative, and that is affirmative past the burden of proof. Why? Why does affirmative get stuck with this burden of proof and negative doesn't? Why is that true? We need to make a positive thing. Oh my gosh, did you take a logic class or something? Or are you going to say something similar? Maybe you dictate the policy that you're going to be putting in place when you're taking the profit. Yeah. So when you debate a resolution or a proposition, who is the one who's trying to get you to accept that proposition? Affirmative or negative? Affirmative. Affirmative wants you to accept the proposition. Negative wants you to reject it. And then we have a basic belief in reasoning and logic and argumentation that if you put forward a claim it is now your responsibility to prove that claim true. Any time, and this is true in life so this is good to know for the next argument with your boyfriend or girlfriend. If they say, we're going to eat at Burger King you are not now responsible to say why we shouldn't eat at Burger King. They are responsible to say why we should. Because they have made the claim and in terms of debate, affirmative is the one who is responsible for getting the judge or the audience or whomever to accept the proposition. That doesn't mean that negative doesn't have responsibilities. Negative will absolutely have responsibilities that you take on the burden of proof. One other example is in a courtroom, if you're in a courtroom and you have the prosecution and the defense, who has the burden of proof? The prosecution? Why? They're the ones making the claim. They are the ones claiming that you broke the law and they have to prove it true. The defense does not have to disprove it. The prosecution has to prove it. In a courtroom and in debate, it's the same way. Affirmative has the burden of proof. It's also the reason, if you've looked at the speech times, that affirmative gets the first and the last speech, which seems a little bit unfair. Why do they get to speak first and last? Because they have the burden of proof. That's why they get to speak first and last. Then I said on this handout, to meet the burden of proof, the affirmative has to provide all the stocked issues. This is for a policy-style resolution. We sometimes debate other types of resolutions, but we're going to talk today about policy-style resolutions. When I say policy-style, do you know what that means? No. Okay. A policy, so we could have a fact resolution, a value resolution, or a policy resolution. Mostly we debate these. Sometimes we debate facts and values. So a fact resolution asks us if something is true or not. A value resolution asks us if something is good or not. And a policy resolution asks us, should we do something or not? Most of the things you're going to debate are whether we should do something or not. They're mostly going to be policy-based resolutions. And these stock issues that I've given you here are for these policy-based resolutions. Should we do something? Should we go to Burger King? Right? And I'm going to have an example that I'd like you to work on in just a minute. But anytime we ask ourselves, should we do something or not, there are some basic things, some basic arguments that the affirmative needs to make for us to know whether we should do something or not do it, or maybe do something else. Okay. So the first couple things there are the, it says definitions and criteria. So the first thing that the affirmative does in their speech, quite literally the first words out of their mouth after like, hey, how you doing? Let's talk. I'm really okay with that one. Yeah. Thanks. It's definitions. So we're going to have a proposition and those propositions could be all sorts of things. What's a current event going on right now that we might debate about? Can you say ISIS that we need some help? Sure. We're going to talk about ISIS. The United States should significantly up its military presence in Iraq and Syria. Right? Might be something to debate. What's another thing that's coming out of the world right now that we might debate? The Hobby Lobby Ruling. What do you mean by the Hobby Lobby Ruling? Do you mean to define the hobby? Yeah. Who in here does not know what the Hobby Lobby Ruling means? Okay. It's a ruling that said that a company did not have to provide birth control because of the voyage. Yeah. So we might have a, so now that we have the Supreme Court has decided that corporations have some religious liberties we might change that, right? We might have a resolution that says corporations will no longer have religious freedom. Right? We could make that change. And, so we debate usually pretty significant things going on in current events. So one of the first things that we knew, we need to do is define that, right? So if you're an around me, you're affirmative resolution says the Supreme Court should overturn the Hobby Lobby decision. Guess what you need to define first? What we need to be clear on first before we ever debate anything? What the heck is Hobby Lobby, right? Which has come to mean this representation of corporations having religious rights, but it's actually like a craft store. So we need to be clear that we're not just like, we're going to go storm the gates of a craft store and shut it down, right? We're actually talking about this particular Supreme Court decision that happened in the last several months, okay? And that's going to be true for almost everything we debate. There are going to be some words that we either disagree about or are controversial or are unclear. And those things affirm it should define, okay? So that's the first thing that you're going to do is that's some definitions. Second thing is a criterion. We need to know how are we going to evaluate this debate. You don't want to leave it up to the judge or the people in the room to come up with any method of evaluation they want. You want to tell us how we should evaluate it because there are many different ways I could evaluate a debate. You want me to evaluate it in a good and fair way that's relevant to what you're debating. Usually in policy resolutions, and I think I've written this down, it's usually cost-benefit analysis or net benefits. In terms that relatively mean the same thing. So you're going to by cost-benefit analysis at the whole end of the debate is doing something going to give us more benefits or more costs. So if our debate is whether we should go to Burger King or not are we going to get more benefits out of going to Burger King or are we going to get more costs out of going to Burger King? Well, it's going to be tasty so that's going to be a benefit. It's probably going to be bad for my long-term health so that's going to be a cost. We're going to weigh all of this out and eventually decide which is going to be better or which is going to be worse and if everything's better at the end ultimately who wins? Affirmative. Affirmative. And if everything's worse at the end who wins? And that's what I mean by cost-benefit analysis. Just because I used the word cost you should not think of that as just money. It's anything bad that might happen as a result of us doing an action. If someone dies, that's a big cost. So don't think of it as just money. So we're going to find what it means and then you're going to knock your glasses off and then you're going to tell us how we should evaluate the debate and then we're going to set up the rest of the debate and we're going to try to meet these stock issues which happen to make a wonderful little acronym, SHITSA. Sometimes it's SHITS because it's my thing. I'll never forget it. See poop jokes, right? So the first is significant harms, right? If we're going to do something and we're going to make a change there's probably something wrong right now. In fact, there is. There's something wrong right now. Because naturally as human beings we are lazy and we don't like taking risks and so if we can continue to be lazy and not take any risks, that is our default position, right? If everything is fine and lollipops and sunshine and puppies then we're not going to do anything. Why should I get up off my couch if everything's great? So the affirmative, the first thing that they want to show is not everything is great. We need to come up with harms that are significant of, things that are wrong right now to get me past wanting to be lazy and scared. Right? So there's something wrong right now. So if we're in my Burger King debate one of the harms might be I'm really hungry and that's going to get me over my laziness and make me want to go get some food, right? Because there's something wrong right now. If we get to a more serious topic like ISIS, like journalists are being beheaded cities in Syria and Iraq are being taken over that's a pretty significant harm that should make us want to get up and do something and be willing to take a risk because there are significant things going on but what I want to stress today is that you do these things in your everyday life not just in big it doesn't have to be war and peace it can be Burger King, right? So you're going to set up that there's something wrong. That's the first stock issue. Then the next one is Inherency sometimes the forgotten stock issue Inherency is this idea that the problem is not just going to solve itself that there is something that will not, that's getting in the way of the problem just solving itself, right? That magically, that if you don't take an action it's not going to solve There are some things in this world that will solve themselves without us doing anything, right? But if I'm in my Burger King example a hamburger is not just going to magically show up in my hands unless I take an action, right? It's not just going to appear and if I go back to the ISIS example they're not going to stop taking over cities in Iraq unless we take an action but you want to show that it's not just going to solve itself that there's something in the way usually there's a law or an attitude or something in the way that it's going to stop some of us stop the status quo from just solving the problem all its own so that's the I proof that it's not just going to solve itself then you need a topical plan so you're going to have a plan you're going to do something we're going to go to Burger King we're going to spend a billion dollars on military aid to Iraq we're going to send troops in we're going to send we're going to do something and there are lots of steps to that plan but basically the most important one is the mandate what are you going to do and if concisely it's possible what are you going to do then you have solvency so you set up these harms you told me they weren't going to solve themselves you gave me a way to solve them and now you're going to tell me how that actually happens how do those harms now get solved by the action that you took in the plan and if my harm was I'm really hungry and my plan is we're going to Burger King I ate a Burger King and now I'm not hungry anymore things got better I solved that significant harm of hunger right if your harm is that ISIS is taking over cities in Iraq now the US Army is going to solve that because they're going to bomb them into yesterday and now they can't take over cities anymore you set up a problem you told me it wasn't going to solve itself you gave me a plan to solve it and then you're going to explain how did that plan actually do that so now we've made it all the way to the essences right the last one is A, advantages and even though it's last I think I can say this even though it's last it's really important though they're listed last advantages are extremely important because you want to get beyond just solvency you don't want to just solve the harms you could theoretically win by just solving harms but hopefully something good happens above and beyond just solving the bad not only did we stop the bad things from happening but we made extra good things happen the advantages are so in ISIS maybe now Iraq's economy gets stronger maybe the Syrian civil war finally ends those are some pretty awesome advantages might be harder in my Burger King example maybe because we're supporting Burger King there are still local jobs available for people I don't know yeah I'd say 5 bucks cool could be an advantage I still have money in my pocket at the end of the day yeah exactly so those are my advantages and that guess what so you have all these things that you have to do as an affirmative to meet those stock issues to meet your burden of proof how many speeches do you have to get all of that information up one yeah but all of this information comes out in the very first speech this is your first speech in the debate this is the prime minister's constructive if you flip over at the bottom of the back I have the three affirmative speeches on what you should do the prime minister's constructive is a 7 minute maximum speech and in that lay out the affirmative case and give all the stock issues to meet that burden of proof so you gotta meet all of the shits up in that very first speech okay one of the things that's awesome about that though is that you have that all prepared by the time you walk into the round so that first speech is really the only speech in the entire round that you know what you're saying definitely in that speech and you have 7 minutes to get that all out also if you look on the back you'll notice that there are two different styles that do the same thing one of the first one I say is the traditional model that goes in exactly the order the other one is the advantages model where they put the harms and solvency into the advantage right we had a harm this is how the plan solved it and this is the good thing that comes as a result of it so there are two different styles of organization traditional and then much more you'll see now teams using this advantages model but either one will get you past that burden of proof and get you to a basic case questions so far have you worked in it together in just a moment here's what I'd like you to do I'm going to give you a very everyday topic you would never actually debate this in a partly round but it might be something you end up debating one day in your life or maybe you have debated one day in your life since this is an affirmative round you're all going to be affirmative but I'd like you to work maybe in small groups finding people introduce yourself working groups of two, three, maybe four events here is the big policy decision you are trying to make you want to get it on I want to get it on okay now I want to see can you come up and meet all of those stock issues can you tell me what the shitsa is for getting a dog what is the significant harms what's the inherency what's your topical plan what's the solvency and what are the advantages of getting a dog all of you are for it now I want you to see can you come up with all of those parts of a basic affirmative case for why we're going to get a dog so go ahead talk it out take some notes and then we'll come back and talk as a whole group as long as you have something discussion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I