Logan Hickman
"Hypothetically, the sufficient standard to win a debate round in my opinion is prove you do not create any harm to the status quo and have a chance (however minute, doesn't matter if there's no harm) to improve the status quo, or if you will likely cause harms/DAs to the status quo it is outweighed by a reasonable assumption you will produce good, and more good than you will produce harm. However, the safest bet is to uphold the 4 stock issues and prove your plan will cause significant benefits without any significant disadvantages to a high degree of certainty."
As I think we are both aware there are many different theories of affirmative team burdens in a debate round, so let me try to break it down by a few different categories.
First let's start pragmatically and overly simplistic. What the affirmative team has to do to win the round is convince the judge that they are right. Too often in debate do we get caught up in whether aff or neg won an argument, when really it's less about us winning the argument, and more about explaining to the judge how we won an argument. But "convince the judge" isn't a very satisfactory answer so lets go ahead and break that down a little bit more, how can we convince the judge we won if we're on aff?
I assume the heart of this question is ultimately pointing towards a debate on stock issues, comparative advantage, or some balance in between. Let me elaborate a bit on the two extremes and then derive from that my position, and how I would go about this as a debater.
Stock Issues (Abbreviated as SI from here on out): I assume most debaters are familiar with the SI, Topicality (plan must fit under the resolution), Inherency (alternative solution or same solution can't exist under the status quo), Significance (must be a significant reform/have significant effects [side note this is the vaguest and most subjective of the stock issues, and I dislike it for that]), Solvency (plan must solve harms presented by aff), and Disadvantages/DAs (plan can't cause significant disadvantages).This framework is very useful for debaters thinking through how to attack a case, what arguments to run, organization, structure, and serves as amazing shorthand. However, it is also sometimes framed as the standard "how to win a round." There is a framework that must be upheld and if it isn't upheld, neg wins. This philosophy says aff must uphold those 4/5 pillars to win a round.
Net Benefits/Comparative Advantage (Abbreviated as CA): This is definitely a super subjective standard. The SI framework give a very clear, concrete method to evaluate the round. This is fairly subjective. If this plan save 20 lives, but costs $20 million dollars, how to we weigh the human and fiscal costs? A lot more is left up to the debater's persuasion in order to be able to win under this philosophy, and impact calculus becomes the primary form of round determination. Conceptually it's easy to grasp the concept, but in practice is hard to implement effectively.
Conclusion: Ultimately I do think the burden aff must uphold is the one agreed upon in round. During CX I would urge every debater to establish in one of the first 2 CXs the burden they believe aff should uphold, SI, CA, or some combination. And this can go back and forth in round. I believe the affirmative team should be able to uphold the SI framework when selecting what case to run, and if they can uphold the SI then can win the round regardless of the burden. I think a more fair burden is the CA framework, if you can cause more good than bad after your plan, you should be able to win the round. Afterall, that's how we evaluate decisions in our daily life. Personally when I debated I always advocated for a CA framework on both aff and neg, and so I would personally say I believe pure CA is sufficient for aff to win a round, although because judges all have different philosophies, some alumnus might expect a SI framework, and a majority of debate parents will judge based off of SI not CA.
Other Notes: In addition to proving you make the world better or at least won't make it worse, you do need to be reasonably specific. You don't need to read your entire bill, but certain aspects (how long this'll take, how much it'll cost, how likely it is to work, specific numbers for advantages claimed) should be able to be clarified upon request.
TL;DR: Hypothetically, the sufficient standard to win a debate round in my opinion is prove you do not create any harm to the status quo and have a chance (however minute, doesn't matter if there's no harm) to improve the status quo, or if you will likely cause harms/DAs to the status quo it is outweighed by a reasonable assumption you will produce good, and more good than you will produce harm. However, the safest bet is to uphold the 4 stock issues and prove your plan will cause significant benefits without any significant disadvantages to a high degree of certainty.
Emalyn Sharp
"a. Be clear, and b. Make the judge care by proving that their plan is needed"
In my opinion, there are two things the affirmative must do to win the round. They must
a. Be clear, and b. Make the judge care by proving that their plan is needed. If a team doesn’t convince a judge that their plan matters, then there is little point in having a debate. Significance is the most important part of the debate round.
Some additional thoughts on this if you want more:
The key to winning the affirmative is clarity. The negative will do everything in their power to muddy the water and make the judge doubt the specifics of your plan, so constantly clarifying your position and plan while reinforcing the need for it is going to distinguish a good round from a messy one. It doesn’t matter how fantastic your technical policy is if the judge feels confused, which is all the negative has to do in order to get a win.
I’ve always been really big on stock issues making or breaking an affirmative team, so an affirmative team would do well to not only make sure their case is constructed strongly but also to point out to the judge that their plan upholds all of the stock issues by framing them as questions that they answer.
Ie: In our case and evidence today, we’ve seen that there is a problem, because (brief recap of evidence), our plan solves (or helps) this problem by (brief summary of plan’s action), and furthermore, there are no negative consequences from our plan, because (address the da’s brought up and recap them as insignificant).