Opposition Strategies

							      International Debate
     Education Association


Opposition Strategies



   Derek Buescher, University of Puget Sound,
           Tacoma, Washington, USA
                Agenda
Review Types of Resolutions (each has unique
arguments)
Basics of Refutation (4 Step Refutation)
Opposing Policies
Opposing Values
Opposing Facts
General Opposition Arguments
Exercises
           Policy Resolutions
Example: “The European Union should diplomatically
pressure Myanmar to open its borders.”
Policy Resolutions
– Ask the Proposition to alter or change a current situation.
– Identified grammatically by “should” or “would”
– Require opposition to prove
      Problem in the status quo
      Plan to deal with that problem
      How plan will “solve” for the problem
Other Examples
            Value Resolutions
    Example: “This house believes security needs
    outweigh environmental needs.”
    Value Resolutions
–     Ask the proposition to prove one thing is better than another
–     Requires a structure to assess the comparison (a hierarchy of
      values)
–     identified grammatically by a comparison, for example “better
      than,” “greater,” “more important,” “justified.”
–     Requires Proposition to prove
         Value Hierarchy is good interpretation
         Their interpretation improves, in some manner, the value
    Other Examples
            Fact Resolutions
    Example: “China’s non-intervention policy with
    Myanmar has strengthened the region.”
    Fact Resolutions
–     Ask the proposition to prove something is true or
      something caused something else
–     Identified grammatically by infinitive verb, for
      example “to be,” “is,” or “are.”
    Other Examples
         Basics of Refutation
    Four Step Process
–     Step 1: say what opponent said
–     Step 2: provide a response (refute it)
–     Step 3: explain response
–     Step 4: create impact comparison
    This process allows:
–     Judge and opposing team to follow your arguments
–     Makes explicit your “warrants” or reasons for why your
      arguments are to be preferred
–     In other words, it forces you to answer the “why” question
        Opposing Policies
    Arguments you can make
–    Plan is not necessary (no problem)
–    Plan does not solve for the problem
–    Plan causes worse things to happen
–    Plan could be solved better by another
     course of action
–    Example
         Opposing Values
    Opposing Values—Arguments you can
    make
–    Value structure is bad (value is wrong)
–    Proposition does not uphold their value
–    Proposition does not prove their value
     application
–    Example
           Opposing Facts
    Arguments you can make
–    Proposition does not prove its statement about the
     fact claim
–    Offer a counter interpretation of the fact claim
–    “resolution claim”—argue the Propositions case is
     not linked to the resolutions given for the debate
       How should the resolution be interpreted
       How does the proposition case not meet this
       interpretation
    Example
Generic Opposition Arguments
  Critique underlying assumptions
       Argue the proposed interpretation (plan, value or fact) rests on
       faulty assumption that needs be refuted, or criticized
       Argue the assumption is harmful to society or that assumption
       would cause harm
  Uniting Strategies
       Do not think of propositions of fact, value, and policy as being
       always distinct from one another. These areas overlap.
       Consequently, the strategies overlap.
       Think practically—what happens if the proposition is affirmed as
       “true.”
       If you were a judge of the debate, do you think the proposition
       has done enough to get your vote? Where do they fail to meet
       the needs of convincing you? These are avenues for you to
       point out to your judge.
             Exercises
We will select a topic generated by the
discussion, create a case outline, and the
basic opposition strategy for a debate.