Jump to content

Solvency Advocate Framework

Recommended Posts

Last year, I remember seing some teams make the framework argument that every case should have a "solvency advocate," or someone/piece of evidence that specifically and more-or-less explicitly  says "We should do this plan." However, I've only ever seen this argument made as an analytics argument, a throwaway make-the-2AC-respond-then-promptly-drop-argument. 


So, my question is, is this argument ever made in a serious (round-winning) context? And, if so, what evidence and standards could teams use? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the argument because there's not a clear brightline between what is and isn't a solvency advocate.  If there's enough literature on the question for the aff to have a coherent case, there's probably also enough literature on it for the neg to have answers and be ready to engage it.


If you want to run it, I think vagueness is a decent standard.  Absent a piece of evidence directly defining what the plan does, the aff will be able to redefine it however they want in the 2ac to spike out of DAs.  That said, CX probably checks and there's not likely to be a ton of abuse on it in most rounds.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...