Introduction to Debate -Negative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter # Or call and enter # © L. Husick, Esq.

Stock Issues Harms Inherency Solvency Significance Topicality (sometimes not considered stock)

Negative Case Stock Issues Take-outs, Turns, Defense Topicality Disadvantages Counterplans, Kritiks

Negation Proving part of the Affirmative case wrong is a “take-out” Proving that an opposite result or impact occurs is a “turn”

Topicality Shell - “T” Definition and Interpretation - Negative provides a definition of the term, and an interpretation in context. Violation - How the Affirmative case falls outside the definition. Standard - Why the Negative's interpretation is superior - includes the argument that the source of the definition is superior, that the negative's interpretation provides the fairest division of argumentative ground, that the negative's interpretation provides the best opportunity for education, etc. Voter - Why the judge should vote on topicality in the round - it is abusive to the negative team to have to argue a case that falls outside a reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

Topicality Standards 1. Predictable limits - limitations set on affirmative teams provide for a deeper, more intellectual debate round because negative teams are able to predict what they are up against and research the topic. 2. Ground - This standard argues that an interpretation of the resolution must provide sufficient ground to both sides so that there will be clash. 3. Bright line - creates clarity, clarity creates clash, and clash creates a better debate round. 4. Grammar - correct grammatical structure determines the validity of an interpretation. If one interpretation is more grammatically correct then it should be favored. 5. Context - a topical case must fit the context of the resolution. When defining a word that is used in a sentence, one can’t just use an obscure definition. 6. Framer’s Intent - what did those who crafted the resolution think we were going to debate? 7. Common Man - use the interpretation that anyone and everybody can understand; debate’s purpose is to communicate with normal human beings. 8. Education - an interpretation/definition is favorable because it focuses on the areas most educational to all the parties involved. 9. Others: Extra Topicality - some of the plan is Topical and some not. Effects Topicality - plan must be topical, cannot gain topicality only from plan’s advantages.

Topicality Voters 1. Competing Interpretations - argues that a team has the burden to uphold the best interpretation in the round. 2. Fairness - claims that it is unfair for a team to debate a non-topical cases and that the judge should vote against affirmative in order to provide competitive equity. 3. Education - Some teams argue that it damages their education to have to debate a non- topical case. “Because teams like the Affirmative are running non-topical cases, the research burden of the Negative team is increasing as the year progresses, which prevents us from gaining an in-depth understanding of the actual resolution.” 4. Jurisdiction - like arguing solvency under topicality. The judge only has jurisdiction over the policies that affirm the resolution. Analogy: a baseball umpire can’t rule on whether a basketball player traveled with the ball. 5. Ground Lost - the cases should rightly have been the counterplan of the negative team. The judge should vote negative, because Affirmative has stolen negative ground. 6. Potential abuse - claims that the judge should deter teams from running non-topical plans, by voting against them.

Affirmative “T” Response 1. We Meet - “no, we don’t violate your standard and here’s why.” 2. Counter-interpretation - refuting the interpretation and standards. Present your counter-interpretation, provide your own reasons to prefer (standards), and refutation against the opposing teams standards. All three steps are crucial. 3. Non-voter - “who cares.” Use this response when the opposing team has failed to provide any valid voters/impacts.

Disadvantages - “DAs” DAs have several basic components: Uniqueness - the disadvantage is not occurring under the status quo. This is supported by evidence. Link - states that the Affirmative plan causes the DA when it is put into action. Internal link - connects the Link to the impacts. (Not always used.) Brink/Linearity - how much? Impacts - the “so what?” of the DA. This why the judge is supposed to vote against the Affirmative’s Plan. Usually, these include global nuclear war, global extinction, pandemic, and economic collapse.

Counterplans A Counterplan is simply a plan proposed by the Negative which solves for part of or all of the Aff. Advantage and has an additional benefit. Thus, the Negative team becomes in effect a second affirmative team in the round. A counterplan must meet two criteria: It must be non-topical (but some disagree with this) It must be competitive, i.e. it must force the judge to choose between the Affirmative plan and the Counterplan, if the judge can do both the counterplan and plan, the counterplan may be permuted by the Affirmative (“do both”)

Anti-Counterplan 1)PICs bad- the aff will argue that plan inclusive counterplans are abusive as they capture affirmative ground 2)Topical CPs bad- the aff will argue that topical CPs are illegitimate since they capture affirmative ground and affirm the resolution 3)Conditionality/Dispositionality bad- the aff will argue that the ability of the neg. to simply drop the CP is unfair as it is a moving target and skews time allocation 4)No Neg. fiat- the aff will argue that the neg has no resolution and therefore no fiat 5)Fiat abuse- the aff will argue that the CP fiats too many actors and therefore is illegitimate 6)Severance permutations bad - a severance permutation is one which severs an essential part of the aff plan. You need reasons why this is illegitimate 7)Agent/Process/consult Counterplans bad – there are some pretty good reasons why consult counterplans are unfair, you need to justify their existence

Kritiks A form of Negative attack that attempts to redirect the focus of debate to whether or not to reject ideas which support or uphold undesirable ideology, language, institutions, or world views. The kritik argues that ideas which will never be implemented are not as important as "real" ideas and impacts. An argument operating outside the framework of normal, comparative policy debate, attacking a (usually implicit) assumption of an opponent's analysis. Based on philosophical work of Hegel, Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida which argues that the way we think is more important than our goals and actions.

Burden of Proof The Affirmative must support the resolution over the status quo. The Negative may negate the resolution or merely support the status quo as the better alternative. In a counterplan, the Negative assumes the burden of proof for the CP.

Flowing (Yes, you have to!) Step 1 - Develop your own shorthand. Nearly all debaters speak faster than a person can write. As you learn common debate tactics and terms, you will develop a form of abbreviations that works well for you. (T, DA, CP, Inh, Solv, Arrows, etc.) Step 2 - Draw columns on each sheet of paper. Make one column for each speech that will be made. Assign each team a color. Step 3 - One sheet is usually used for introductory material, such as restating the resolution, explaining what the status quo is regarding the topic, defining words in the resolution, and outlining what course of action the affirmative team proposes. Each subsequent sheet represents either an advantage of affirmative team's plan or a disadvantage of that plan (presented by the negative team). Step 4 - As each speech is given, write down the points made in that speaker's column. If a rebuttal immediately occurs to you, write that down in the column that represents your team's next speech. Step 5 - Align rebuttals horizontally on the paper with the arguments against which they're being made. If it's not possible to align the arguments horizontally, connect them with a line on the paper.

Flowing (Yes, you have to!)

Next Sessions TBD - L-D TBD - PFD