Whole-resolutional case

A whole-resolutional case is the Affirmative position which claims to affirm the resolution but does not present a specific plan to do so. Most whole-resolutional cases do this by presenting lists of problems caused by status quo policies and claiming that this suggests that a reform must be made. This relies heavily on the paradigm of rezcentrism.

Need does not justify action
Because the affirmative lacks a plan text, they also lack the ability to claim solvency for their harms. It is possible to argue that the affirming the resolution requires assurance (or at least some reasonable possibility) that the problems presented can be solved. By extension, because the affirmative cannot claim solvency, the resolution cannot be necessarily true.

Negation theory
Negation theory argues that in order for the debate round to proceed fairly, the Affirmative must have a tangible position of advocacy for the negative to negate. Because the Affirmative has no specific advocacy, the debate round cannot proceed, since any continuance of debate would merely devolve into counterwarrants. This would be detrimental to the debate since the arguments cannot be weighed against each other and the round would not be educational. Therefore, the argument goes, the judge should vote Negative to encourage Affirmatives to run cases that enhance the educational value of debate.

Counterwarrants
Main article: Counterwarrants

A Negative running counterwarrants implicitly accepts the Affirmative's paradigm and agrees that the debate is about whether or not the resolution should be affirmed. The Negative then shows a number of possible reforms within the scope of the resolution which would be incredibly disadvantageous: usually drastic plans like "removing the right to vote" or "nuking Russia" are used to demonstrate the point that the resolution should not simply have a blanket stamp of approval. This forces the Affirmative to either accept the disadvantages or present some sort of advocacy.