AJAC

An AJAC, or Alternative Justification Analysis Case, is a type of Team Policy debate case that presents multiple different (or even contradictory) plans. The judge is asked to vote for the Affirmative if he or she is convinced by at least one of the cases presented - even if all the others are proven to be a bad idea.

AJACs are generally based on rezcentrism. The Affirmative claims that it may pursue multiple avenues of proving the resolution true, and if at least one of those ways is legitimate, then the resolution has been affirmed and an Affirmative ballot is justified. Rarely, however, AJACs are run under a plancentrist framework, using the theory of conditionality.

In Lincoln Douglas debate, the term “AJAC” is also used to mean a case with more than one value, or a value systems case.

AJACs are rare in the NCFCA and Stoa. The fairness and theoretical legitimacy of AJACs is highly controversial, primarily because they present an unconventional view of the Affirmative's advocacy.