I honestly can’t tell what it is you’re advocating, so you might want to make that clear. But, let me explain something to you. A policy debate is made up of four stock arguments: harm, inherency, plan, and solvency.
Harm: the status quo is doing harm. You need to establish this harm and it needs to be significant enough to warrant action.
Inherency: there are two ways to do this. 1) The first way is to say that absent the proposed plan, the harm will not be solved. In other words, if your proposed plan is not adoped, then there’s no way the harm will be taken care of. 2) The other way to approach inherency is much weaker: you argue that the problem will not solve itself, so that some plan needs to be adopted, but not necessarily yours. Someone could offer a counter plan using your harm & inherency arguments against you.
Plan: you need to have a plan. What’s important in this stock argument are the dis-advantages, or dis-ads. Here’s where the opponent argues that your plan will be more harmful than the status quo, therefore it should not be adopted. For example, if you have cancer, then blowing your brains out will certainly put an end to your cancer, but the cost (death) is probably too high.
Solvency: you need to establish that your plan will solve the harms inherent in the status quo.
If you are proposing a change to the status quo, and if you lose any of the four stock arguments, then you’ve lost the debate. No harms? No reason to change. No inherency? The status quo can solve the problem. No plan? Can’t change w/out changing to something. (For those who say anything is better than X need to remember what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodia. Things have to be pretty bad for anything to be better.) Finally, so solvency? No reason to adopt the plan.
So, what are the harms? Why do we need your plan to solve them? Why won’t your plan be worse than the status quo? Will your plan work?
I hope that helps.
js_nationally qualified college debater_africanus