Comparative advantage

Comparative advantage is a criterion for evaluating a Team Policy case. It argues that the judge should vote for the case if it improves the status quo, even if there are no explicit harms in the status quo.

Most debaters accept comparative advantage as a legitimate criterion, but some (especially older alumni) consider it a "cop-out" and believe the Affirmative must solve a specific harm.

Comparative advantage cases
Affirmative cases that use the comparative advantage criterion are typically called "comparative advantage cases" or "comp-ad cases", and often follow a similar structure (definitions, plan, advantages.) As one might expect, comparative advantage cases generally lack an explicit harms section.