CLARIFICATIONS provide an opportunity for both affirmative and negative debaters to make general comments regarding the interpretation of the resolution. These observations are optional, but they are important to keep the debate on the right track.
This is a chance for the affirmative to point out that they are under no obligation to provide a plan for implementing an idea, or even deal with financial or attitudinal barriers to an idea; only to show that an idea should be worthy of consideration for implementation.
Remember that LD is all about VALUES, so this prevents the LD style from being mired down in, “But how are we going to pay for this?” “Do you really think the American Congress, as it currently stands, would vote for this?”
So, in our sample case (Resolved: truth seeking should take precedence over privileged communication in court), the affirmative has no obligation to develop a system of interrogation, develop a warrant of a psychiatrist’s files to fish for confessions to capital crimes, or convince the Catholic Church to remove the secrecy of the confessional from the church doctrine. In other words, the affirmative does not have the burden to develop a policy.
Your job as the affirmative is only to convince the judge that “truth seeking” is more important than “privileged communication” in a court of law. We are debating the idea rather than establishing a policy. Clarifications and observations take time and should be used sparingly.