Negative Strategies

Must be Well Prepared and Flexible

Aff. Has burden of proof AFF. shows the status quo has inherent problems NEG. has the burden of rebuttal Must refute the AFF. Case Must prove the Aff. case is defective in some manner If Neg. can show that Aff. failed to prove justification or present a plan significantly more advantageous than the status quo, then they have shifted the burden of rebuttal to the Aff.

Argue Justification Aff. must justify their plan Neg. can present counterevidence to demonstrate that the problem is not as bad as the Aff. is presenting Attack causal links Problems are generally presented as having a cause and an effect. If Neg. can prove that there is insufficient evidence to prove the “cause-effect” relationship, then they can argue that the Aff is guilty of ad hoc reasoning (thrown together/jumping to conclusions) or post hoc reasoning (assuming that because B follows A, that B is caused by A) Alternate causality: proving that the problem is caused by something else Neg. can attack the quality of evidence used to prove a need for change

Arguing topicality Considered an absolute voting issue If Neg. wins this, they win the debate Neg. demonstrates that Aff. has violated the principles of academic debate by straying from the bounds of the resolution. 2 ways to argue topicality Subtopicality: arguing that the Aff. example is not sufficiently representative of the resolution to fall under the resolution Example: If a resolution describes raising the sin tax, but the Aff. only describes raising taxes on Budweiser, then that argument would be subtopical. Nontopical: failure to fall under the resolution at all Example: If a resolution describes raising the sin tax, but the Aff. instead discusses regulating alcohol, tobacco, etc. differently, then that argument would be nontopical.

Argue Significance & Inherency Prove that the need for change or advantages are not significant enough to warrant change Watch for the Aff. to fail to quantify how much damage has been done by the status quo Prove that harm is not inherent in status quo Provide evidence that the problem is improving Show that there is a government program that is dealing with the problem successfully Minor repairs: a modification to existing programs that 1. Will fix the system so the status quo can solve itself and which 2. Falls short of adopting the resolution

Argue that the plan does not meet Need/Advantage Plan-Meets-Need (P.M.N.) attack: suggest that the plan will not solve the harm identified, used against a Traditional Needs case Plan-Meets-Advantages (P.M.A.) attack : deny plan’s ability to achieve significant advantages, used against Comparative Advantages case P.M.N.-P.M.A. attacks Solvency: Neg. argues that the Aff. plan will not achieve the advantages. Plan could be circumvented – especially effective against arguments based on attitudinal inherency Workability: prove the Aff. plan is unworkable If the plan won’t work, it can’t solve the problems or achieve the touted advantages

Structures of different attacks

Attacking the Case Identify & summarize Aff. argument to be refuted Specify which parts you are attacking Group several similar Aff. arguments together when possible Briefly state the point of your argument Present evidence that supports your claim Show the impact of your argument Explain exactly why the Aff. part of their case has been effectively refutted

Attacking Topicality Standards: how are we judging topicality? Use value and value criterion Violations: why is this a violation? Identify the violation Explain why it is a violation Impact: how does this affect the argument?

Research Checklist Completed Next Week Today Affirmative Negative Basic background information Definitions Value Value Criterion Affirmative Negative Justification Philosophy Planks of the plan Attacks Agent Mandates Topicality Enforcement Significance/Inherency Funding P.M.N./P.M.A. Spikes Advantages Today Status Quo Harms Inherency Common plans