What is a potential disadvantage that the negative might argue about the affirmative's plan?

The reasoning behind selecting the option related to high costs as a potential disadvantage that the negative might argue about the affirmative's plan is grounded in the practical implications of implementing any new policy or proposal. When debating a plan, particularly one that requires significant resources, one of the first considerations is the financial impact it may have on government budgets, taxpayers, or private entities.

Arguments concerning high costs can highlight several concerns: the potential for strain on public finances, the risk of budget cuts in other essential areas, and the likelihood of increased taxes or reallocation of funding from existing programs. These points can raise doubts about the feasibility and sustainability of the affirmative's plan, leading to a compelling counterargument.

The other options do not present valid weaknesses for the negative side to leverage. For example, greater public awareness can be seen as a benefit rather than a drawback. Similarly, stating that there are no potential drawbacks would weaken an argument rather than strengthen it. The idea that the plan supports the current system might also depend on the nature of the proposal itself; if it aims to reform or improve upon the system, this point may not hold weight. Therefore, focusing on high costs presents a tangible and relatable issue for the negative to argue in a debate scenario.