THE GOAL CASE AFFIRMATIVE: AN ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH TO ACADEMIC DEBATE
John D. Lewinski, Bruce R. Metzler, and Peter L. Settle
Since the advent of the comparative
advantages approach to competitive de-
bate there has been much discussion
about the alternatives to the standard
need-plan affirmative case One of these
controversies has centered on the value
of the "criteria" or "rationale" case. Sev-
eral articles have dealt with this ap-
proach to debate propositions.! From
their frequency on the debate circuit, it
appears that this approach has also
caught on in the competitive debate
arena.
However, there appears to be some
disagreement and confusion on exactly
what the "criteria-rationale" case is. This
confusion centers on the location of the
"goal" in the case. The writing on the
Mr. Lewinski is Director of Debate, Marquette
University, Mr. Metzler is Director of Debate,
Carroll College (Wisconsin), and Mr. Settle is
Assistant Director of Debate, Marquette Uni-
versity.
1 James W. Chesebro, "Beyond the Ortho-
dox: The Criteria Case," The journal of the
American Forensic Association, VII, No.4 (Win-
ter 1971), 208-215; Clark D. Kimball, "Is there a
Rationale Criteria Case?" Issues, IV, No. 1 (Oc-
tober 1970), 11-16; Daniel M. Rohrer and Alan
Lichtman, "The Role of the Criteria Case in the
Conceptual Framework of Academic Debate,
Part One," Issues, III, No. 4 (January 1970), 1-
5: Daniel M. Rohrer and Alan Lichtman, "The
Role of the Criteria Case in the Conceptual
Framework of Academic Debate, Part Two,"
Issues, III, No. 5 (February 1970), 1-4; Daniel
M. Rohrer and Alan Lichtman, "The Role of
the Criteria Case in the Conceptual Framework
of Academic Debate, Part Three," Issues, III,
No.6 (March 1970), 1-4; Daniel M. Rohrer and
Alan Lichtman. "The Role of the Criteria Case
in the Conceptual Framework of Academic De-
bate, Part Four," Issues, III, No. 7 (April 1970),
12-16; Daniel M. Rohrer and Alan Lichtman,
"The Role of the Criteria! Case in the Con·
ceptual Framework of Academic Debate, Part
Five," Issues, III, No. 8 (May 1970), 11-15; David
A. Thomas, "The Criteria Case: Should it be
Encouraged?" Issues, IV, No. 8 (May 1971), 1·2.
subject indicates that the goal to be
sought by a "criteria" case should be a
new goal, not one sought by the status
quo. For example, Rohrer and Lichtman
write, "the criteria case explicitly argues
for some different values or for the pri-
orities which it attaches to existing val-
ues."2 1\Iany affirmative teams, however,
are building cases which seek goals that
are consistent with and included in the
status quo.
It is our purpose to examine this ap-
proach to the resolution. We will pro-
pose that attainment of goals consistent
with the status quo is a legitimate affirm-
ative approach, but that it does differ,
both in intent and requirements, from
the "criteria-rationale" case. Thus, we
propose a new type of affirmative case,
the goal case.
Definitions
Preliminary to an explication of the
responsibilities of an affirmative team in
constructing a goal case, the issues which
arise from such a case, and the approach-
es which a negative team might take in
defending against a goal case, we will de-
fine the goal case and compare it to the
more commonly heard types of debate
cases-"criteria-rationale," comparative
advantage, and inherency-harm.
The goal case asserts that the elimi-
nation of structural barriers which pre-
clude the attainment of compelling goals
of the status quo is sufficient justification
2 Rohrer and Lichtman, "Part One," p. 1. See
also Chesebro, p. 214; Kimball, p. 11; Rohrer
and Lichtman, "Part Two," pp. 3-4; Rohrer and
Lichtman, "Part Three," pp. 1-4; Thomas, p. 1.
 THE GOAL CASE AFFIRMATIVE
for change. By contrast, the "criteria-
rationale" case (which also argues for
the attainment of a goal or value) asserts
that the present value hierarchy places
the emphasis on improper value judg-
ments. It argues that a new value or val-
ues should supplant those sought at pres-
ent, or that the priorities set at present
should be reordered. 3 The goal case
adopts the goal of the status quo and
seeks its fulfillment.
The comparative advantage case as-
serts that adoption of the resolution will
more nearly fulfill certain assumed de-
sirable values, such as saving money or
greater efficiency within a system. Mc-
Burney and Mills explain that the com-
parative advantage case "compares the
present plan with the proposal on the
basis of results." 4 Freeley might take con-
tention with the viewpoint that the goal
case is separate and unique as a form of
affirmative advocacy. He writes, "The
advocate selects the comparative advan-
tages analysis after his study of the prob-
lem leads him to the conclusion that
there is a better way of attaining the
goals of the status quo. He accepts the
goals of the status quo, presents a plan
of the type required or permitted by the
proposition, and argues that his plan
will produce comparative advantages."5
He continues, stating that in compara-
tive advantages debate, "The negative
cannot deny the need to reach the agreed
goals in a way that will do more for us,
or enable us to reach our agreed goals
more quickly, more efficiently, more fair-
ly, or in some way that is more beneficial
to us." 6 Whether one accepts the view-
3 Chesebro, p. 214; Kimball, p. II; Rohrer and
Lichtman, "Part One," p. l; Rohrer and Licht-
man, "Part Two," pp. 3-4; Rohrer and Licht-
man, "Part Three," pp. l-4; Thomas, p. I.
4 James M. McBurney and Glen E. Mills,
A rgumeutation and Debate, Second Edition
(New York, 1964), p. 195.
5 Austin J. Freeley, Argumentation and De-
bate, Third Edition (Belmont, 1971), p. 207.
6 Ibid., p. 209.
459
point that the goal case is separate and
unique from the comparative advantage
analysis or chooses Freeley's analysis that
a comparative advantage may also be a
goal, one must realize the difference in
argument necessitated in the value/goal
distinction. In attempting to achieve a
value-advantage (short of the goal for
which policy is formulated), the affirma-
tive advocates structural changes to bet-
ter existing conditions. In seeking a goal,
the affirmative finds structural barriers to
goal achievement which must be re-
moved (through implementation of the
resolution) in order to attain the goal.
The goal case asserts that it is illogical
to have a system that is in conflict with
its goals. A primary difference is thus es-
tablished. The goal analysis seeks to re-
move barriers to goal or purpose attain-
ment while the value-advantage ap-
proach attempts to attain the products of
policy.
The inherency harms case also adopts
the goal of the status quo. Rather than
arguing that there is a structural bar-
rier to the attainment of that goal, it
argues that there is a structural flaw
which works counter-productively to that
goal-it creates harm.7 The goal case,
on the other hand, asserts no harms un-
der present policy. It asserts elimination
of goal-policy inconsistencies.
The Goal Analysis
With the realization that the goal case
is different in philosophy from the cri-
teria-rationale, value-advantage, and in-
herency-harm affirmative approaches to
debate resolutions, one must next con-
sider the unique concepts of goal case de-
bating. The philosophy of the goal case
is that the status quo, traditionally the
negative stronghold, is essentially cor-
rect in its commitments. That is, the
7 Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede,
Decisio11 /J)' Debate (New York, 1963), p. 224.
460 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION
goals of the status quo are compelling,
but the mechanisms used to attain those
goals are faulty. Agreement on such a
central issue makes the goal case unique
in that both the affirmative and negative
agree in principle with the status quo's
commitments. With this area of agree-
ment is the center of the affirmative
analysis, this is a significant departure
from the traditional affirmative-negative
relationship.
Affirmative-negative agreement ceases
at that point. The debate centers on the
ability of the status quo to meet its own
commitments. In a goal case, the affirma-
tive must prove that the status quo is in-
herently precluded from goal attain-
ment. It should be clear that the goal
case affirmative does not carry the re-
sponsibility of indicating that harmful
problems exist, or that significant ad-
vantages will be accrued. The affirmative
offers sufficient justification for change
by indicating that the status quo is in-
capable of meeting its admitted purpose.
A detailed analysis of the duties and re-
sponsibilities of the affirmative and nega-
tive will be presented later. For now the
philosophy of the goal case should be
clear:
I. The goal sought must be a commitment of
the status quo.
II. The status quo must be inherently incapa-
ble of attaining its goal.
III. The affirmative plan must guarantee that
the inherent barriers will be overcome.
IV. Elimination of goal-policy inconsistencies is
sufficient justification for change.
Affirmative Obligations
There are a number of obligations
that must be met in affirmative case de-
velopment. Since it is the primary re-
sponsibility of the first affirmative to of-
fer justification for change, the primary
areas of departure from traditional de-
bate formats are found in that construc-
tive speech. The constructive obligations
of the first affirmative are contained in
the following case outline:
I. Introduction to the proposition (roughly
identical to the traditional form with the
inclusion of a statement to indicate that
the affirmative is seeking goal fulfillment).
II. Definition of terms.
III. Goal Development (this should come early
in case development to indicate where the
affirmative is placing its emphasis).
A. Goal must be defined as a commitment
of the status quo (this indicates that the
goal is not a new priority).
B. Goal must be shown to be compelling
(the goal may not be of minor impor-
tance).
IV. Goal Exclusion
A. Status quo must be inherently incapable
of fully removing barriers to goal at-
tainment.
B. Future conditions must be such that the
status quo cannot achieve the goal (this
simply indicates that predictable condi-
tions arising from status quo policy are
incapable of attaining the goal).
V. Affirmative plan (may be included in
either the first affirmative constructive
speech or early in the second affirmative
constructive).
The obligations of the second affirmative
and those of the rebuttalists remain vir-
tually as in all other types of cases.
In developing the goal it seeks to ful-
fill, the affirmative must establish the goal
as a commitment of the status quo. In
so doing, the affirmative establishes the
ground upon which it will attack the
status quo-inability to meet its declared
goal. By making the goal identifiable as
a commitment of the status quo, the af-
firmative team assumes the presumed vir-
tues of the status quo.
In this analysis, the affirmative is not
debating the merits of a particular goal,
but is asuming the virtue the status quo
has already placed on that goal. Since
the negative may challenge the desirabil-
ity of the goal only by losing their pre-
sumption, the affirmative must be able to
show that the status quo is supportive of
the goal. The affirmative must also be
 THE GOAL CASE AFFIRMATIVE
able to show that the goal is of major
importance. That is, the goal must have
a significant range of effect on whatever
area the proposition concerns. Since
most academic debates deal with na-
tional or international problems, the
goal sought must be of correspondent
importance. That is, if the proposition
is national in its concern, the goal should
be for the welfare of the nation, not the
welfare of Iowa, Kansas, or Wisconsin
alone.
In establishing the goal as a tenant of
the status quo, the affirmative may turn
to policy statements, legislative acts, or
judicial precedent to establish that the
status quo supports the goal. In con-
structing this issue, the affirmative must
identify the proper goal formulating
agency. Citing a goal of foreign policy,
for example, that was enunciated by the
Secretary of the Interior would proba-
bly be a faulty analysis, for the Interior
Secretary has no decision making or poli-
cy formulating authority in foreign pol-
icy. The affirmative should, then, con-
sider the proximity of the agency to the
resolution, the ability of that agency to
determine and set goals within the pur-
view of the resolution, and whether a
higher authority cites a different goal for
the status quo.
After indicating that the goal is of
major importance, the affirmative must
show that the attainment of the goal is
structurally precluded by status quo pol-
icy. The affirmative is not required to
show that this structural barrier creates
harms or prevents advantage accrual, for
inability ot attain a compelling status
quo goal is, alone, sufficient justification
for change. If the status quo is attaining
partial fulfillment of the goal, the affirm-
ative may still have a viable indictment.
However, the greater the degree to which
the status quo is fulfilling the goal, the
less compelling the affirmative case will
be.
461
The final affirmative obligation is to
demonstrate that the affirmative plan re-
moves all inherent barriers to goal at-
tainment. This responsibility roughly
parallels that of "plan meet need" and
"plan accrue advantage" responsibilities.
If inherent barriers to goal attainment
exist after the adoption of the resolu-
tion, the affirmative has failed to meet
its primary duty of providing access to
the goal.
Fulfillment of Stock Issues
The viability of debate cases is mea-
sured against three criteria, the "stock
issues." The goal case, when properly
constructed, meets each of the "stock
issues."
I. Is there a rationale for change? Does a prob-
lem exist? The goal case alleges a problem in
the status quo policy's inability to fulfill its
declared goal. The inherent inability of pres-
ent mechanisms to attain their own and con-
stitutes a rationale for change.
2. Will the proposal remedy the problems in-
herent in the present policy? A properly de-
signed goal case removes inherent barriers to
goal attainment by substituting structures
that will facilitate goal accrual.
3. Can the remedy be applied without serious
disadvantages? The disadvantage issue in the
goal case is identical to that in all other
forms of debate cases.
The goal case, when properly conceived
by an affirmative team, meets all of the
stock issue criteria commonly applied to
affirmative analyses.
Negative Approaches
The negative has a number of options
at their disposal in debating against a
goal case analysis. Perhaps the most un-
usual position the negative is placed in
regards presumption. The negative will
lose presumption if it attacks the desir-
ability of the goal set forth by the af-
firmative. That position would be tan-
tamount to rejection of the status quo.
462 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN FORENSIC ASSOCIATION

The presumption in a goal case lies with would be endangered. Status quo goals
negative defense of status quo procedures may be mutually exclusive, as some claim
used to attain the goal. The negative is the case with "guns and butter."
may retain presumption and indicate When the negative presents such an
that the goal (I) is being met, (2) is not argument, the affirmative must be able
the true goal of the status quo, or (3) is to show either that the goals are not
not precluded from attainment. In show- mutually exclusive or that the affirmative
ing that the goal sought by the affirma- goal is sufficiently compelling to over-
tive is being met, the negative removes come the objection.
all vestige of rationale for change that
has been advanced by the affirmative. In Value of the Goals Approach
demonstrating that the affirmative goal is
The goal case is theoretically and
not the true goal of the status quo, they
structurally sound. It is more realistic in
may simply show faulty affirmative evi-
its approach than any of the more com-
dence and reasoning or may opt for in-
monly adopted affirmative cases. Cer-
dicating that a source closer to the goal
tainly a compelling reason for change is
formulation agency indentifies a differ-
the indication that a system is incapable
ent goal for the status quo. In so doing,
of achieving its own ends.
the negative forces the affirmative to shift
ground in the debate from a goal analy- A major objection to the use of goal
sis to a criteria-rationale approach, forc- cases is that it allows the affirmative to
ing the affirmative to defend the relative carry too light a burden. ·while the af-
value of their alleged goal over that cur- firmative does not have to prove an in-
rently sought. In arguing that the status herent harm rising from present policy,
quo goal is not precluded from attain- it still must prove that the status quo is
ment, the negative seeks to remove the inherently incapable of attaining its
inherency issue from the affirmative ar- goal. The affirmative still must deal with
gument, and, if successful, has made a an inherency question. But, the major
compelling defense of status quo poten- concern of the case, the one upon which
tial. This mode of negative argument is the burden of proof is most difficult, is
closely allied to the status quo modified the ability of the affirmative plan to ful-
approach in which the negative indicates fill its obligations. This is the major con-
that while the goal is not being com- cern in any policy debate. The ability to
pletely fulfilled at the present time, formulate a new way to solve an old
minor adjustment would allow the pres- problem is a very difficult issue for any
ent policies to do so. To the extent that type of affirmative proposal. The goal
the status quo modified approach case places the heaviest burden directly
achieves goal fulfillment, the affirmative upon this stock issue. This burden, cou-
case lacks inherency. pled with the same problems of inheren-
The negative also has a number of op- cy and plan disadvantages that are
tions for attacking the affirmative plan. standard in other types of cases, makes
Since the affirmative must allow for ac- the goal case as difficult to defend as
cess to the goal by eliminating inherent
other types of cases.
barriers, a plan-goal wedge would be ef-
fective. In establishing disadvantages to Whether one adheres to the position
the proposal, the negative may wish to that the goal case is a separate and
indicate that by fulfilling the affirmative unique form of academic debate or be-
goal, other important status quo goals lieves that it is simply a new approach
 THE GOAL CASE AFFIRMATIVE
to the comparative advantage analysis,
one must realize the necessity for the
goal approach to bt:., hf.mdled differently
from other forms of analysis. Since this
approach to academic debate provides a
compelling rationale for change, and, at
the same time, places the traditional
onus on the affirmative team, the authors
feel that the goal case is worthy of more
463
utilization in tournament competition
than it is currently seeing. The basic
premise of the case is that policy should
be changed if it currently fails to attain
the end for which it was designed. In
the "real world," there are few better
reasons for change. Certainly the ap-
proach should be allowed and encour-
aged in academic debate.