1. Negative Strategies

2. Must be Well Prepared and Flexible

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. Structures of different attacks

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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