Plan

A plan is a proposed set of actions to carry out. In most rounds, the Affirmative team presents a plan in the 1AC as a way to affirm the resolution. For example, when the NCFCA resolution was "Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy towards Russia", many Affirmatives proposed graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment. (At the time, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was still in effect.)

A plan is just one part of a case. The remainder of the case presents solvency, advantages, and other reasons why the plan is a good idea.

Components of a plan
Components of a plan may be called "planks".

Mandates
Mandates define the proposed reforms. In the above example, the mandates might be:

 1. Graduate Russia from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment.

2. Grant Russia Permanent Normal Trade Relations status.

Agency
The "agency" is the agent that is responsible for enacting the plan. The agency must fall within the actor specified in the resolution (when an actor is specified). For example, if the actor specified in the resolution was "the United States Federal Government", the agency for the plan might be "Congress and the President". Simply saying "any necessary Federal agency" is also commonly accepted.

Enforcement
The "enforcement" details who is responsible for enforcing the plan. Some plans do not require enforcement, but many do. Like the agency, the enforcement must fall within the actor specified in the resolution, and is typically more specific.

Funding

 * Main article: Funding

Not all plans require funding, and there is some controversy over where funding should come from if required. Most teams simply specify that their plan will be funded through "normal means" (or "general federal revenues"), or redirect funding from a specific program.

Timeline
Some plans require delayed or phased-in timing, which is specified in a timeline. Many plans simply state that the plan should be passed "immediately after an Affirmative ballot"; "as soon as possible" is also common.

Theoretical controversies
There is considerable controversy regarding what, precisely, specifying a plan does. Most debaters in the NCFCA and Stoa hold to a rezcentric framework, which argues that the judge votes for or against the resolution; the plan merely serves to show that the resolution is true. Those who hold to a plancentric framework, however, argue that the judge votes for or against the plan itself.

In practice, this distinction has little impact on most rounds, but can become important if a topical counterplan is introduced.