[MacMan]

A very rough outline of a debate:

A formal aff/neg debate follows a very specific course, which is very difficult to keep in an online debate. However, the guidelines for arguments can still be followed. (I'll be talking about this in the online sense)

The affirmative:
This is the first person to bring up an argument, which is then addressed (in entirety) by the other 'team.' The argument should give substantial evidence to imply that the "status quo" (the way things currently are) is wrong. A very nice argument would also describe why nothing has not already been done about what's wrong, or why what has already been done has been ineffective. The argument is called a plan when a solution is incorporated into it, ie, "This is wrong, this is why it's wrong, this is why it matters, this is what we can do about it."

The negative:
The person who attacks every point brought up in the affirmative argument. It is very bad form to drop and arguments brought up by the aff, because it is then assumed that the neg agrees with the aff on that point. In order for a neg to win a debate, they must give substantial evidence to prove the aff's argument is incorrect/doesn't work. This can be done by only disproving one aff point.

The resolution:
This is almost never present in an internet debate, but it is the goal the aff is working for, usually for the federal government to increase funding for something (relating to the debate topic) significant.

The argument brought up by the aff, and the points argued by the neg, should all fall under five "stock" topics... AKA the ****S.

Significance: Why you should take the aff argument seriously. An argument that can solve for the worldwide destruction of the rainforrests would be more significant than one that can only solve for Tenny Park down the street. The negative would address this by proving that there are more important things to worry about, and the aff plan has no overall benefit.

Harms: What's wrong right now? If the way things are going now continue, what's going to happen? The aff would argue significant (you'll hear this allot) harms are the result of the status quo. The negative would counter this by saying the harms are exaggerated, incorrect, inaccurate, don't apply, or have bad sources.

Inherency: What currently exists that prevents anything from being done about the problem (the inherent barrier). A plan that only says the federal gov't should change all $10 bills to have the face of Peewee Herman on them, and the federal gov't has no objection to this, would have no inherency. The negative would address this by saying there is nothing to debate, so the aff case can be thrown out.

Topicality: Whether or not the aff argument relates to what you are debating. This is argued all the time by negs, by using definitions and interpretations of aff statements to try and prove the aff argument is undebateable. However, a negative who only argues topicality should be called by the aff at the end of the round for not addressing the whole aff plan.

Solvency: What the aff plan does to fix the problem. Topicality is used with this the most, by arguing that the aff plan is not really solving for their own plan.

As mentioned before, if the neg can prove the aff case is weak in any of these five points, they should get the win (by STOCK judging, affs never get low point wins).

Affs would also claim advantages to their plans, and negs would try to counter those with disadvantages, ie, "If this plan is passed, there would be peace on earth," "But if this plan is passed, everyone would lose the use of their left hands and have inbred children."