INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DEBATE

Document Sample
INTRODUCTION TO NEGATIVE DEBATE Powered By Docstoc
					INTRODUCTION TO
NEGATIVE DEBATE
      Presented by:
        Ron Bratt
  www.capitol-debate.com
GOALS ON THE NEGATIVE
 Traditional Model - Win that adoption of the
    affirmative plan will make things worse
    not better. In debate terminology, the
    disadvantages of adopting the affirmative
    outweigh the advantages.
     Step 1 - Minimize the need for the affirmative
          Argue that the Status Quo is solving the problem –
           called attacking inherency
          Argue that the problems are overstated or not
           existent – called attacking harms
          Argue that the affirmative plan will not work – called
           attacking solvency
     Step 2 - Present Disadvantages to Adoption
       of the Affirmative
GOALS ON THE NEGATIVE
Alternative Approach Number 1-
   Counterplan: Agree that there are
   substantial harms in the status quo
   but that the affirmative approach is
   not the best approach.
GOALS ON THE NEGATIVE
Alternative Approach Number 3 – A little bit of
    everything – testing the truth of the
    affirmative. Negative contends that they
    can run lots of different approaches to
    affirmative that could be inconsistent.
    Whatever sticks wins. Our job is not to
    have a consistent approach – it is just to
    negate. We are like 100 senators
    approaching bill – coming from hundreds
    of different directions in our persuasion.
ATTACKING THE AFFIRMATIVE
          CASE
 ATTACK ONE OR MORE OF THE
 PRIMA FACIE ISSUES – IF YOU KNOCK
 OUT ONE, YOU CAN KNOCK OUT THE
 ENTIRE ADVANTAGE.
  ATTACK INHERENCY
  MINIMIZE HARMS
  QUESTION SOLVENCY
ATTACK INHERENCY
1. Attack the dates or how recent
   the evidence is – for example, if
   the affirmative case says that x
   program is underfunded, and the
   evidence is 2 years, the negative
   could argue that they must prove
   that there is insufficient evidence
   that the status quo is not doing
   the job today.
  ATTACK INHERENCY
2. Turn Inherency against the affirmative – look for
   evidence that says that attitudes are so
   imbedded in the status quo such that affirmative
   will never be able to overcome this. Now I am
   not referring to congressional attitudes as the
   affirmative has fiat although they might run into
   some post fiat circumvention problems where
   another branch of government repeals the law. I
   am speaking off societal attitudes – for example,
   on the national service topic they might read
   evidence that the young are so disenfranchised
   with volunteerism or civic responsibility that
   negative can argue that no amount of incentives
   can ever overcome
ATTACK INHERENCY
3. Argue Alternative Mechanisms
 in Status Quo are solving – the
 status quo might, for example,
 not be funding peace corps but
 we might be giving increased
 food aid to starving developing
 countries.
 ATTACK HARMS
1. Can argue that affirmative
   evidence is flawed or exaggerated
   – argue that the harm is not as
   significant as the affirmative
   claims. Argue that the harm is
   raised by authors that have a
   vested interest in claiming there
   are problems in the status quo so
   that they get funding.
   ATTACK HARMS
2. Argue there are alternate causalities for the
    harms claimed – if other things cause the
    harm, then eliminating the targeted
    problem in the status quo will not be
    sufficient. For example, on the national
    service topic, affirmative might claim that
    there is starvation in developing countries
    and that peace corp will solve by teaching
    them how to grow food and have
    sustainable agriculture. The negative,
    however, can argue that overpopulation or
    climate is causing starvation and that
    warming is causing problems to the farms
    that even peace corps cannot solve.
   ATTACK HARMS
3. Argue Minimal Impact – attack the internal
    links to the big impact. For example, if the
    affirmative claims that lack of civic
    responsibility is hurting democracy and
    that hurting democracy will lead to tyranny
    and that tyrannical governments kill
    millions, negative can argue that yes there
    is lower civic responsibility but that does
    not mean that totalitarianism will come to
    the US as there are checks and balances in
    the government that prevent. The job of
    the negative is to always minimize
    advantages to the point where they can
    claim that their disadvantages outweigh.
   ATTACK HARMS
4. Everything is getting better – Negative
    can research that there things are
    getting better in the status quo or
    other programs are working to
    improve life in the status quo. For
    example, affirmatives will claim lots of
    terrorism advantages on the national
    service topic. Negative can argue that
    detection is improving, that al-kaeda
    is decreasing in status quo, that
    terrorists will not attack, etc.
 ATTACK SOLVENCY
1. Does the Plan Wording Match the
    Solvency wording – if the plan calls to
    do “X”, does the Solvency evidence
    say that “X” will work. For example,
    in the national service topic, if the
    plan calls for providing health care
    incentives to Senior Citizens for being
    involved in the Senior Corps, then
    they better have solvency evidence
    saying that health care incentives will
    works.
 ATTACK SOLVENCY
2. Attack the source of solvency
         Is there more than one solvency
          advocate – need replication.
          Cannot base it just on what one
          person has to say – do others
          agree.
         Who is the solvency advocate –
          does the person have the
          experience to make this judgment.
          What are they basing their
          decision on? Any bias?
  ATTACKING SOLVENCY
3. How much of the advantage does
   the negative solve for – if they are
   claiming terrorism as an
   advantage, how much do they
   reduce terrorism by. Can they
   really completely eliminate risk.
   By analogy, if someone was
   digging a hole, does removing the
   shovel remove the hole.
ATTACKING SOLVENCY
4. Attack the empirical success –
 what is the underlying basis for
 the author reaching the
 conclusion that the plan will
 work. Has this succeeded in
 the real world before or is just
 an expert’s hypothesis.
ARGUE DISADVANTAGES
ARGUE THAT THE PLAN WILL
 RESULT IN DISADVANTAGES
 THAT WILL OUTWEIGH ANY
 POSSIBLE AFFIRMATIVE
 ADVANTAGES.
GO TO DISADVANTAGE
 LECTURE!

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:4/6/2010
language:English
pages:17