Teaching Debate in Japan 日本におけるディベート教育

Transcription

1 教育実践学研究 21, Part Five Debating the Negative 日本におけるディベート教育 第五部否定側ディベート Paul KLOUSIA * NAGASE Yoshiki ** ポール クラウジア 長瀬慶來 ABSTRACT : Debating the negative side of the topic requires the student to understand the basic negative strategies and the requirements for each of the tactics involved. These include:attacking studies, reducing significance, attacking inherency, using minor repairs, developing counter plans, attacking solvency, developing disadvantages and attacking topicality. Key words : Debate, teaching, negative. inherency, minor repairs, counter plans, disadvantages, topicality 1 Introduction Debate founded in the precepts developed by Aristotle remains today connected to the rhetorical foundations he established as an educator himself. This constitutes the fundamental blue print of how debate exists as an educational tool. Whether in a classroom, or national competition, or a political, philosophical, religious, scientific discourse intended educating and influencing the beliefs of society, accomplishing instruction in debating the negative aspects of individual, group, and societal realities continues as a mainstream expectation of gaining a well-rounded education as lifelong learners. From a student or teaching perspective this involves attacking studies, attacking harm (reducing significance of harmful aspects of life), attacking inherency, debating about minor repairs for changing negative aspects of anything, developing arguments for counter plans, solvency attacks creating positive from negative, arguing the disadvantages, and topicality of what makes up the world from every aspect provides the means for creating identified and workable changes. This can be as basic an educational practice as creating differentiation in the method of delivering lessons in a classroom to as profound an argument process (Peckham 66) as the recent decision across the United States for no longer promoting the divisive ideologies inherent in the imagery of the Confederate Flag flying over public places and institutions. The framework of this process consists of conceptual change of debating the negative as suggested by Machery (214). Debate remains a form of educating and according to Bond who contends learning information through methods and strategies including debate must match a pragmatic organization and lend to the perceptive abilities of the audience/student. While debate provides presentation of new facts and concepts just as traditional instruction does nonetheless debate does not necessarily guarantee the knowledge becomes actualized. Consequently, when considering the learning of knowledge negative debate contributes to acquiring * Center for Liberal Arts Education 教養教育センター ** Graduate School of Teacher Education 教育実践創成講座

2 knowledge then the process must contribute to the ability of the audience applying that knowledge (30). Consequentially, educational practices influencing conceptual change in debating the negative that exists is an essential component of any type of social progress. Understanding and correctly debating the negative therefore remains again, a process of gaining understanding and, Using contextual or applied methods of instruction when teaching is not a new notion (Bond 33) and especially true in the complex rapidly changing world of the 21 st century. Applying abstract concepts in debate indeed looks at the context of the subject and when contextual instructional methods have been used in academic classes prove nothing more than watered-down versions of abstract concepts and principles learners need effective instructional methods for understanding debating the negative just as much as they do in debating the positive as an abstract concept. The goal is instruction effectively preparing students with, (The) ways such knowledge can be utilized in the real world (Bond 33). Understanding debating the negative encapsulates understanding (The) abstract/conceptual learninghearing, reading and absorbing abstract concepts (Bond 33). In higher education the emphasis at this stage has an expectation of moving beyond the passive attitude toward critical thinking about the traditional abstract/ conceptual instructional process in understanding the negative debate. It is clash of views that defines debate and the understanding of what underpins e negative in relation to the positive aspects of debate creates the focus of the point of view (POV). The arguments for the affirmative position on a case therefore, demands the negative argument provides refutation only after finishing the analysis of the basic affirmative argument and those thereafter (Janssen and Jijkamp 34; Nagel and Mills xi). Further, Hahn, Hahn, and Hbeika explain how the most common negative debate positons include topicality, disadvantages, and counterplans among a few others. Each type is used both offensively and defensively against the Affirmative case. The argumentative position in debate are referred to as 'offensive' when both he the negative POV and the affirmative position put pressure one on the other providing specific reasons why that the opponent has lost the debate round. Arguments are defensive when they maintain the (in this case the negative) team s position and prevent the (other affirmative) team from losing the round (140). The position of the negative debate according to the following sections of the focus of this scholastic endeavor must eliminate or minimize the affirmative position scenario having influence on the audience halting any sustainability of the affirmative POV through challenging and limiting the influence of the POV. Using the POV of the affirmative and turning it against this position by providing the way the affirmative position makes the issue worse (Snider 31; Knowles and Lim 40; Perloff 268). Taking the negative position calls for the strategy that focuses on bogging the affirmative POV down by getting them directed on one issue. By putting the affirmative POV on the defensive time becomes an important factor taking them away from the ability for addressing other issues the negative POV introduces in the debate. The negative POV must attack the positive POV in the order they take place as part of having an organized structure to the strategy. In the case of the negative POV as the negative is the positive that debate becomes challenging for the affirmative. Always look at all of the points in the affirmative case, decide what is important, and then allocate time and arguments on that basis. Deal with them in the order presented so the judge can follow them easily (Snider 32) and in the informal debate so can the audience (Meany and Shuster 347). The following research, refection, and discourse provides insights needed for understanding the process of the negative debate as already mentioned above as it relates to attacking studies, attacking inherency, attacking harm (reducing significance of harmful aspects of life), debating about minor repairs for changing negative -80-

3 aspects of anything, developing arguments for counter plans, solvency attacks creating positive from negative, arguing the disadvantages, and topicality of what makes up the world from every aspect provides the means for creating identified and workable changes. The first section attacking studies. 2 Attacking Studies Debating the negative in attacking studies according to literature suggests this begins by creating the argument by sorting the evidence on this subject according to well-founded information. Strategic position of the negative argument provides the essential rhetorical validity in educating listeners to the POV as the goal while criticizing the other position on the subject in this case studies. In doing so, this helps determine which of the evidence fits best by tossing those parts embedded in redundancy. Having developed evidentiary files this provides the means for creating specific arguments aligned to attacking studies from the negative debate position. The best evidence will be from the least biased source, strongly worded, give reasons why its claims are true, and be based on facts (statistics or empirical studies) rather than analytical arguments (Hahn et al 50). Others provide how, (Debate) should use solid evidence and rigorous reasoning not only to convince audiences of arguments but also to educate audiences about the topics being debated and the uses of effective methods to accomplish those public, democratic, and educational debates, (Trapp, Zompetti, Motiejunaite, Driscoll, and Bowker 12). The use of solid evidence provides a sound pragmatic foundation for any debate positive and negative position no matter the subject or topic. The cognitive aspects of learning provides an effective means for instructional strategies which fundamentally is what debate entails instruction of information to the audience aligned to their cognitive ability as a natural way of learning new information. The negative debate process holds this as part of the strategy from the abstract perspective of debating ideas about issues (Bond 35). The role of educating no matter the medium or the learner in this case debating the negative to an audience/ listener/judge requires understanding and using cognitive abilities connected to creating the information as much as understanding its intention. (Bond 33). Just because literature exists on studies the important aspect of the negative POV looks at debating the limitations of the studies as part of the challenging argument strategy. A challenge is an argument that indicates inadequacies in the arguments of the opponent and urges their rejection or degradation. It specifically identifies logical and developmental inadequacies in argumentation and then reevaluates the argument based on these inadequacies. The affirmative s failure to address these inadequacies means that the negative reevaluation of the argument stands. (Snider 34) The subsequent collection of evidence of the negative debate about studies therefore means using the limitations of the study in contention building evidence (Claxton 51-51) ideally based on the statistical and incorporating what stands as true with the applicable theoretical fallacies including the negative POV in a formal fallacy of categorical syllogistic argument that has no negative premise (Fallacy Files para 1-2). The evidence for the negative POV in debate about outcomes of studies typically supports what this position rests (conversely it is also the same for the positive position). Undermining this support by addressing major inadequacies in evidence is essential if you are to win the debate. Here are some simple techniques to keep in mind to indict the evidence (Snider 35). Taking the negative debate about the outcomes of studies develops a strategy for identifying any broad claims about the evidence the affirmative position provides. This often allows launching challenges against critical evidence of the affirmative position that seems particularly important as well as vulnerable (Snider 35). By analyzing the strength of the affirmative position on study results listed as evidence allows the probability factor as a continuum beginning as what absolutely will not happen while running to what absolutely will -81-

4 happen remembering very few ideas exist either way with most falling somewhere in the middle range of this extreme spectrum. Consequently, the need for the negative POV in debate of studies must identify the qualifiers within the affirmative evidence for use in the challenge (Snider 35). Further, the relevance and how recent the research are other factors for identifying in creating a negative POV in debating studies. All else being equal, recent evidence is better than older evidence (Snider 35). How recent the study proves more important in most circumstances however, as in the example of how it, may not be an important factor in evaluating evidence about the yearning humans have to be loved, but it is important when debating a nation s intention to acquire nuclear weapons, especially if the situation is extremely fluid and any criticism focused on the lack of how recent the study outcomes should become part of the negative strategy only if events are likely to have changed since the evidence first appeared (Snider 36). In addition, evaluating the affirmative POV in the study source qualifications are written by experts in the particular field the study covers. It is allowed demanding the referenced sources of the study qualifications but conversely making certain the negative position referenced sources are also legitimately qualified. Ask the judge to opt for qualified negative evidence over unqualified affirmative evidence in any instance where sources are in conflict (Sidney 36). While scrutinizing the source legitimacy check for bias. The references used in studies may exhibit authors who are often fervent believers in a specific approach to the controversy, and some sources have direct vested interests in making certain statements (Snider 36). The fact every person typically has an opinion but it does not necessarily make them a biased source while there exists some biased sources that rarely prove eligible for rejecting the contentious evidence completely. It is only serious source bias that needs exposed and its evidentiary strength reduced. (Snider 36). One technique analyzes the source conclusion as many scholars proved the relevancy of issues from both sides as part of their thorough assessment. Since the affirmative debate positon typically use only the source aspects supporting its claim it is the opportunity for the negative position pointing this out as a means of reducing the claim of its validity (Snider 36). 3 Inherency Another aspect of the negative position looks at inherency. According to Grassmick (1995), The most simplistic view, meaning easiest and clearest to understand, defines inherency as why smart and reasonable people allow dumb or bad things to happen (qtd. in Bates 1). The fact this provides a fundamental understanding of the meaning of inherency nonetheless it is not enough ass it omits, a few important points such as a bright line, a method of proof, and standards (Bates 1). In general: More precise views of inherency make these distinctions and make inherency into a usable debate argument. The first view asks if the affirmative plan is the only way to get the advantages; that is, are the advantages inherent to the plan? This falls under the general definition as asking why, if the plan is so good, does the present system not act on it? The affirmative would claim that there is that there is something preventing the present system from accruing the advantages. This view of inherency merges the issues of inherency and solvency. (Bates 1) A debate plan acquiring the rare advantage via implementation of a particular strategy remaining the only possible working strategy consequently links the advantages with the plan to the extent they become inherent to the plan. Should the affirmative debate position make such a claim the negative strategy attacks the inherency by removing (the) solvency. Conversely, A second specific view of inherency asks, (So it) can the problem -82-

5 be solved without resolution action (Bates 1)? Should the negative position choose admitting no problem exists in the world despite the existence of problem needing solved does not mean the accepted resolution is the only way accomplishing this there remains three options. The negative can counterplan. A counterplan admits that there is no mechanism in the present system that can solve and that major action must be taken (i.e. it admits that there is inherency) (Bates 1). It should be noted how inherency continues as a debatable issue constantly evolving even devolving according to the debate POV. Consequently: Inherency is currently at risk as a viable debate argument. It was a strong issue in the 1950s and 60s. In the 1970s and 80s declined in importance, but was still used as a strategic position. In the 1990s, inherency skirted the borders of irrelevance. Today, debaters and judges can choose the future of inherency. It can be allowed to disappear or it can be reasserted as a mighty argument. (Bates 4) From the position of the negative POV as already pointed out, creating a counterplan remains an option (Rybold 70). At the same time, Solvency ties the Affirmative case together by explaining what will happen after the plan is passed and what advantages will come from that action (Hahn et al 151). (More on solvency in this section further down). 4 Attacking Inherency Debate attacking inherency requires understanding that inherency signifies the existence of barriers aligned to the debate topic. The negative POV works at making the affirmative position have the burden of proving its ability for overcoming the barriers. If not then no solvency is possible (Snider 35). The kinds of issues that connect to inherency of debate topics often clearly designates that people do not like or do not want something. When this is the focus of the debate the attack on inherency means the negative identifies any attempts at sabotaging or preventing the subject from working, and even angers some creating a backlash that provides the negative position with issues of solvency as well as any disadvantage allowing this as a beneficial use. Affirmative teams never give all the reasons why the plan hasn t been adopted or the problem hasn t been solved. Think of what those unmentioned inherencies are and use those to attack solvency (Snider 35). Today s debate community accept three levels of inherency. The oldest is structural inherency that identifies treaties, laws, executive orders, court rulings preventing an affirmative plan proposal. As an example, should the affirmative POV wants to import Mexican avocados from that country, under the existing laws of the U.S. this requires creating a structural barrier as exemplified by first repealing a law. Structural inherency also has structural gaps that may signify no current existing law blocks a plan under the present system, yet actions allowed by the current system does not extend far enough for what needs takes place (Snider 148). An example would be if the U.S. limitations on use of weapons of mass destruction against Russia already existed yet, such a limitation against China is not written creating a structural gap connected to limitation of use against China. Deep-set emotions constitute the second level called attitudinal inherency preventing the plan being accomplished now. An example of this occurs when current legal system controlled by a congress where the majority attitude refuses voting for enacting more species protection laws (Snider 148). From the negative POV in debate, according to Strickland structural inherency arguments historically prove the most burdensome for affirmative teams (qtd. in Bates 2). Eventually, the standards lowered in having the affirmative debate position meeting the burden of inherency because new modes of inherency became the standard linked to attitudinal and existential. Structural inherency is easier to prove but attitudes are almost as strong, although they do have the propensity to change (Bates 2). -83-

6 Connected to this: There are also some judges for whom inherency is, was, and always will be an absolute voting issue. The judge who automatically accepts inherency as a voting issue would operate along a stock issues paradigm. Because she assumes that there is a set of arguments the affirmative must win to have any place in the debate, each one be independently proven for a prima facie case? For this judge, a lack of inherency is as important as a lack of solvency or being non-topical is. If a list of negative inherency answers were read, this judge would automatically assume the impacts of these arguments without requiring the debaters to make it for her. (Bates 2) Existential inherency relates to existing harms debated (more following below) because the debated plan does not happen due to known or unknown actions blocking the change. With this kind of inherency, if the affirmative can demonstrate a massive problem exists, then it has met the burden of inherency by showing that the present system is not solving it (Snider 200). Aligned to the inherency aspects there exists stock issues including significant harms, solvency, and topicality as the basic components of all affirmative POV in debated issues. Although Negative teams cannot predict every argument that the Affirmative will present, they can expect that the Affirmative will attempt to meet the demands of each stock issue (Hahn, Hahn, and Hobeika 151). Preparedness for the negative POV means building generic arguments for specific and every argument as possible. Due to the fact the affirmative POV in the debate must satisfy each stock issue in every round of the debate in order to win, this allows the negative POV concentrating on the opposition s weakest argument and developing a strong counter argument in return (Hahn et al 151). 5 Attacking Harm (Reducing Significance of Harmful Aspects of Life) From the negative POV attacking harm or reducing the significance of harmful aspects of life through the use of debate looks at how structural inherency remains the easier position to prove then must remember the attitudes aligned to debating these changes strong but with the propensity to change (Bates 2). In this case, understanding how existential inherency takes the position how societal harm exists yet diminishing this remains unfulfilled due to the plan not being accomplished as already stated above whether the cause of what blocks the is known or not. Consequently, several assumptions predicate with several assumptions: 1) No one is acting on any level. 2) No one is interested in acting now. 3) There is no propensity for any level of change. 4) There are no alternate solutions being proposed now. (Bates 1) Bates further explains that every one of the above assumptions proves faulty because when a social issue does harm there is no doubt some individual is trying to create a plan of change particularly should the designers of the solvency aspect advocate the proposed plan (1). Even if minor official in an obscure branch of government writes a memo on the affirmative plan, then the present system has taken some level of action on the plan, making claims of existential inherency illegitimate (Bates 2) Garman advises how, "The minor repair the negative proposes would solve the problem, thus making (an) action (to resolve) unnecessary" (qtd in Bates 2). When debate occurs as necessary then the affirmative side must provide the significance of the harm in the POV connected to its inherency as to why the issue remains because the status quo fails resolving it. The affirmative position therefore, (Must) present a plan (its solution to the situation); and it has to show that its plan will, to some extent, deal successfully with the problem (Bates 2). -84-

7 From the negative position, Thus, if you can defeat one of these areas, you have defeated the case (Snider 36) On the other hand, If the negative presents the inherency violation as a voting issue, and if the affirmative fails to respond adequately, then just like a dropped topicality argument, the negative could win on this argument alone (Bate 2). 6 Debating About Minor Repairs for Changing Negative Aspects of Anything Negative POV in the debate provides an option for performing minor repair in changing negative aspects of anything provides taking some action without adopting a resolution yet the problem is fixed nonetheless because no inherent barriers exist to making the change. Yet another negative strategy declares the means to make the change solving the issue already is underway. The final negative position asks what is it that continues blocking the plan from being completed for changing the negative aspects of anything (Bates 1). 7 Developing Arguments for Counter Plans Developing negative arguments for counter plans according to Hahn et al looks at, "Counterplans (as) alternative policy proposals that either change the way the (first affirmative constructive) is enacted or propose a different policy that solves for the Affirmative harms without causing Negative side effects (142). Further, developing negative argument counterplans competing with the affirmative plan does so by proving alternative superior ways exist for solving harms. Whereas the negative defensive counterplans provide the means for arguing they have possession of a better policy than the opposing affirmative position. (Han et al 142). Solvency attacks typically reveal the affirmative POV plan countering any arguments the negative position will likely make on the proposed plan. Typically, solvency is the most important part of an Affirmative case since it proves that the Affirmative plan can effect long-term change (Hahn et al 151). 8 Solvency Attacks By explaining what will happen once the plan is accepted along with the advantages resulting in its passage connects to how solvency ties the Affirmative case together. Arguments created for solvency frame around the evidence proving how the plan remedies the harms. Further to the affirmative position shows how this reveals evidence showing the specificity of the kind of action having important advantages over both any lingering arguments and the status quo connected to any position taken from the negative POV in the debate presumably takes. Solvency evidence is usually derived from policy analysts or government officials who have suggested the plan (Hahn et al 151). Further, the negative position does have the extra burden of proving the counterplan offered in its POV is better than the one offered by the affirmative position. Using a solvency attack or through disadvantage, the negative position can present the net benefit of its proposed solution. As a two pronged attack both the disadvantages and the benefits allows the negative position use of the disadvantage as a round-winning standalone argument. Or, the negative position can argue the net benefit as a counterplan (Hahn et al 189). The strategy for the negative position understands: Using the disadvantage as a net benefit forces the Affirmative team to spend a lot more time answering the counterplan and the disadvantage because the Affirmative runs the risk of losing to either the counterplan or the disadvantage. For example, if the Affirmative plan presents a policy that is to be implemented through legislation, the Negative could present a counterplan stating that the policy be enacted by Executive Order. The net benefit would be a disadvantage linked to congressional action. This disadvantage might argue that while Congress is currently in bipartisan agreement on a critical issue, the Affirmative plan would destroy those alliances. (Hahn et al 189) -85-

8 Solvency as an attack use of net benefits as argument posits the counterplan provides the means for solving the harms created by the affirmative position through more cost effective, efficient, and altogether more superior a manner. The negative POV in the debate uses this as a single-pronged counterplan solvency attack for winning the round. However, in this position the negative team must know that any strategy it uses against the argument made against the affirmative s solvency process also hurts the counterplan (Hahn et al 189). Two reasons exist for negative POV in a debate creating and using a solvency net benefit instead of using a disadvantage net benefit. The firs reason connects to needing less time presenting the counterplan s one piece of solvency evidence over using an entire disadvantage containing at least three pieces of evidence. The second rationale looks at how easy it is for the negative POV to win using the solvency net benefits if there exists a single excellent piece of evidence comparing the two ways for solving the affirmative position s harms with concluding that the negative POV counterplan action recommendations stands superior (Hahn et al 189; Hannan et al 113; University of Pittsburg para 1-2) 9 Creating Positive from Negative Creating the positive from the negative as connected to the negative position in debate super ceding a win over the affirmative position posits around the stock issues. Snider explains since the affirmative POV must win all its stock issues the negative position wins by proving how the affirmative has not proved any one of the stock issues. This means the negative position must concentrate its attack on the prevailing weakest of the affirmative stock components. Only one link of the affirmative position in the debate chain need break and the negative has a reasonable counter position the affirmative cannot win (31). Buescher points out how the negative rebuttal to the affirmative position must extend on the key positions it develops around its POV then synthesizes the debate. Also practiced in some debate circles is the negative position offering responses to every line presented by the affirmative. Similarly, the affirmative rebuttal needs to synthesize the debate and answer the negative rebuttal while, in some circles, also answer all the arguments offered by both the second negative constructive and the negative rebuttal (333). 10 Arguing the Disadvantages In arguing the disadvantages and creating a counterplan the negative must remember this process means understanding and outlining the specific adverse effects of disadvantages created in passing the affirmative plan. Social, economic, and political scenarios frame the affirmative plan (Hahn et al 141; (Grusky and Kricheli-Katz 299). The negative offensive position arguing the disadvantages of the affirmative plan do have negative side effects while the defensive negative position argues how the status quo holds superior to the affirmative plan due to its prevention of any of the social, political, or economic scenarios caused by the plan (Hahn et al 142). 11 Topicality As explained in the inherency section above, opportunities arise focusing on case specific areas of topics in general in debate as well as inclusion of an enhanced level of debate theory. Scrolling inherency creates opportunity for focusing on both the case specific area, the topic in general, and a higher level of debate theory. Indeed, only by combining these elements can a scrolling inherency argument make sense and effect the round in a positive manner for both teams. Instead of cards read from a generic inherency list, scrolling inherency forces the debater to ask when impacts are coming, how they weigh, and if the evidence on her list meets the time-frame offered by the affirmative evidence. Inherency is currently at risk as a viable debate argument (Bates 2-3). Other considerations in topicality aligned debates refer to them as violations when the negative position accuses the affirmative argument of violating the wording of the accepted plan of resolution. In doing so the -86-

9 negative positons argues how the affirmative plan exists outside of any reasonable means of interpreting the resolution leaving the only expectation on the negative position debating about the resolution. The negative offensive positon argues topicality violations exist because the affirmative position proves unfair ergo the judge of the debate cannot vote for the actions of an unfair team. Whereas, the negative defensive position employs the affirmative position s violation of topicality in explaining the reason the negative group cannot predict the need for researching the case and consequently has resulted in the negative position placed at an unfair advantage because of only having the ability to present generic arguments (Hahn et al 140). 12 Discussion and Conclusion In review of the above research, analysis, and discourse as described about the negative in debate in the previous sections there emerges an obvious underpinning of the negative position lending to the providing the means for creating workable changes in the world. The position of the negative in response (Williams and Young 79) to the affirmative in any of the sections previously discussed looks at how debate according to Louden fosters dialogue for reflexive thinking about topics. This includes how an individual thinks about a topic along with the self-evaluation of the thinking of the literature, and the speaking as part of a negative POV in debate. The experiential aspects of any debater s life also influences approaching a POV (Louden 47). Topics for debate drive the critical thinking process as the negative team evaluate the affirmative opponent s position and influences the selection of their own arguments. In doing so as outlined in the different approaches previously discussed above it is important as a group the individual thoughts, research, individual, and group preparation work in a collaborative focus adhering to the debate principles of the negative position as previously discussed above. Again, this is the focused process of preparing briefs and speeches on the negative POV of debate. The fundamental aspects of debating social issues clearly draw on the individual considerations of each of the negative team members learning drawn again from their own life experiences and provide the basis for research development, assessment, and applying the knowledge in the team POV in the debate process (Louden 47; Waller 5). Through dialogue with other negative team members this affords opportunities for engaging in intense dialogue not just about individual debates but along with teammates and coaches in collaborative interchanges. In applying the above tactics as previously discussed debaters also use empirical applications for observing and listening while others engage in similar activities aligned to the negative POV in debate as an ongoing learning process as well (Louden 47). The observation mode applying the negative position in debate tactics as provided in the above research, analysis, and discourse allows debtors involving themselves in the empirical mode with listening to others debate at tournaments. Experts in the field of debate provide input how debaters learn through active listening by concentrating on the varieties of debate speakers as they mentally review through the dialogues of others. In doing so, anticipating the speaker s next presentation of the evidence in the debate provides a genuine learning opportunity when applying the negative debate methodology outlined above because it is a proactive measure in the learning process of debate (no matter the position of the argument) toward winning debate arguments (Louden 47). No matter the debating style policy, a negative team must warrant the claims they make according to the specific directives as applied in the above research, analysis, and dialogue sections outlining the negative debate process. Quality along with quantity of citable sources remains a measurable part of what eventually proves successful strategies in the negative position of debate. Negative teams debating one topic must not only possess but exhibit the ability for presenting specialized as well as significant knowledge of the debate topic -87-

10 (Selegzi 352; The Editor s Ideas 13). Specialized knowledge on particular topics from the negative debate POV and position therefore must meet the expectation of present it in a manner a nonspecialized audience has the ability for following and understanding. At the same time, research based information remains the standard when preparing any negative debate position as guided by the areas thoroughly presented in the above processes (Selegzi 352; Johnson 173). Limiting preparation at any point in the negative position of debate by merely quickly reviewing the most recent information in peer reviewed journals about a debate topic sets up the team for failure as the best practices of the best negative debate teams means applying the methods and tactics as discussed above along with considerable time researching and assessing the topics and issues of the debate. It is clearly a lack of knowledge, a lack of tactical planning that dooms the negative debate position. No matter the type of debate format even where debaters have less expectation of preparation, it is always the more prudent proactive measure of astute preparation of evidence that proves pragmatic and logical (Selegzi 352) In conclusion, the above scholastic endeavor researching, assessing, and discussion provided the negative debate position with insightful understanding as posited in the introduction about the process of the negative debate. The above discourse successfully included the tactics applied as aligned for the negative position related to attacking studies, attacking inherency, attacking harm (reducing significance of harmful aspects of life), debating about minor repairs for changing negative aspects of anything, developing arguments for counter plans, solvency attacks creating positive from negative, arguing the disadvantages, and topicality of what makes up the world from every aspect providing the means for creating identified and workable changes through the negative position in debate. Bibliography Bates, Benjamin R. Inherency, Strategy and Academic Debate Web. Bond, Larry P. Using Contextual Instruction to Make Abstract Learning Concrete. Techniques. 79:1: 30-33, Jan Print. Buescher, Derek T. Educational Convergences: The Potential Relationships Between Parliamentary and Policy Debate Communities. Louden, Allan D., ed. Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century: Wake Forest National Debate Conference. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. Claxton, N. E. Teacher's Guide for Discovering the World through Debate: A Practical Guide to Educational Debate for Debaters, Coaches and Judges (3rd Ed.). New York: International Debate Education Association Book. Fallacy Files. Negative Conclusions from Affirmative Premises. Fallacy Files.com Web. Forester, John. Dealing with Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Oxford UP, Book. Grusky, David B., and Tamar Kricheli-Katz, Eds. The New Gilded Age: The Critical Inequality Debates of Our Time. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, Book. Hahn, Allison, Taylor Ward Hahn, and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. Finding Your Voice: A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. Hannan, Jeffrey, Benjamin Berkman, and Chad Meadows. Introduction to Public Forum and Congressional Debate. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. Janssen, R., and Peter Nijkamp. A Typlogical Approach to Multi-Criteria Analysis. Nagel, S. S., and Mills, -88-

11 M. K. (Eds.). Systematic Analysis in Dispute Resolution. New York: Quorum Books Book. Johnson, Steven L. Winning Debates: A Guide to Debating in the Style of the World Universities Debating Championships. New York: International Debate Education Association. Book. Knowles, E. S., and Linn, J. A. (Eds.). Resistance and Persuasion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Book. Machery, Edouard. Doing without Concepts. New York: Oxford UP, Book. Meany, J., and Shuster, K. Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate. New York: International Debate Education Association Book. Nagel, S. S., and Mills, M. K. (Eds.). Systematic Analysis in Dispute Resolution. New York: Quorum Books Book. Peckham, Irvin. Going North Thinking West: The Intersections of Social Class, Critical Thinking, and Politicized Writing Instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, Book. Perloff, R. M. The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Book. Rybold, G. Speaking, Listening and Understanding: Debate for Non-Native English Speakers. New York: International Debate Education Association Book. Selegzi, Noel. Prospering in a World of World Debate. Louden, Allan D., Ed. Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century: Wake Forest National Debate Conference. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. Snider, Alfred C. The Code of the Debater: Introduction to Policy Debating. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. The Editors of Idea. The Debatabase Book: A Must-Have Guide for Successful Debate (5th Ed.). New York: International Debate Education Association Book. Trapp, R., Zompetti, J. P., Motiejunaite, J., Driscoll, W., and Bowker, J. K. Discovering the World through Debate: A Practical Guide to Educational Debate for Debaters, Coaches and Judges. New York: International Debate Education Association Book. University of Pittsburg. Reasoning Web. Waller, B. N. Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict. In Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict Englewood, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Book. Williams, David Cratis, and Marilyn J. Young, eds. Discourse, Debate, and Democracy: Readings from Controversial: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal. New York: International Debate Education Association, Book. -89-

12 -90-