NEGATIVE POSITION: Debate AICE: GP/Pavich

Transcription

1 NEGATIVE POSITION: Debate AICE: GP/Pavich The FIRST STEP in your position as the Negative Team is to analyze the PROPOSITION proposed by the Affirmative Team, since this statement is open to interpretation by both teams. This will prove beneficial because: you may choose to challenge the TOPICALITY, or the intent, of the debate in the beginning of the argument, or you may challenge the opposing team for presenting information unrelated to the proposition later in the argument. o For example, if the affirmative team proposes that the federal government should provide comprehensive health care for all U.S. citizens and speaks of free preventative medical services as a means of doing so, the negative team might challenge that preventative care is not necessarily comprehensive care. In doing so, you are challenging the intent of the proposition. To ensure your understanding of the proposition, its nature, and its limitations, you must also analyze the TERMS as defined by the affirmative team. o To effectively understand the way a proposition is written and how its relevant terms are defined, please see accompanying handout. STEP TWO involves LISTENING to the Affirmative Team s establishment of PRIMA FACIE in their First Constructive, or the minimal requirement they must to present in support the proposition, and LOOKING FOR HOLES or WEAKNESSES in proof and logic. Prima facie is Latin for at first sight. So in another words, their argument, at first sight, must hold up. By establishing a solid case at the start, they ensure that a debate will take place, so if you can demonstrate that the Affirmative FAILS TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF, you can win the exchange almost immediately. Even if the burden of proof is established by the affirmative team, you MUST still

2 seek out weaknesses in proof and logic as you prepare for your first speech, which is based upon the opposing team s allegations of the problem and their plan to solve it. STEP THREE involves preparing your REFUTATIONS, or your response to the opposition, which seeks to attack and destroy their arguments. As the Affirmative Team begins with their first speech, they are required to present an overview of their claims and a glimpse at their plan to purport change. The claims that they present are called STOCK ISSUES, so your job is to analyze these claims and SEEK OUT RESEARCH you ve found that can REFUTE these claims. As you begin your research, begin to ANTICIPATE how the affirmative might VIEW the current system with regard to your topic and what you think they MIGHT PROPOSE as a solution to the problem that they allege the current system is causing. Review the claims below that your opposition will present and begin to consider the strategies for refuting each. Organize your research around this input!!!!

3 STOCK ISSUES: An In- Depth Look at Claims to Refute and Strategies for Refutation ATTACK HARMà the alleged problem o To attack harm, consider the following questions: How can you prove that no needs are actually being denied by the present system? How can you prove that no suffering exists as a result of the present system? What might be creating an illusion that a problem in the current system exists? Challenge the way in which the opposition measures the alleged harm if you can expose this as an unreliable method, for example, you can strengthen your case. How is the present system helping, as opposed to harming, society? Why isn t the problem worth the time? Is it better, perhaps, to do nothing as opposed to something because action might provoke further damage? ATTACK SIGNIFICANCEà the alleged extent of the problem o To attack significance, consider the following questions: Denying that harm exists altogether is a tough job, but worth consideration nonetheless. Can you deny harm? Is there a way to show that the harms of the present system are not as great as they seem? How can you minimize the harm claimed by the affirmative? Were the harm levels stated by the opposition overstated? If so, how can you prove this? Is the harm a necessary evil to fulfill any higher values? Consider this: does the present system address the essential needs of the public, whereas the new plan addresses wants/incidentals? If so, this places needs over wants and required over desired, which could easily strengthen your point. To what extent is it causing hurt? How big of a problem is it? If the opposition claims that the present policy is making things worse, request quantification, or empirical data to back this up/numbers to verify claim. Be aware: significance can be exposed, also, via qualitative evidence how can you refute that a violation of core values or that human indecency has occurred?

4 ATTACK INHERENCYà separating the alleged harm from current system o With this claim, your goal is to deny that the problem/harm exists within the present system. o To attack inherency, consider the following questions: How can you prove that the alleged problem is NOT built into the structure of the current system itself? Does the problem lie within? How is the alleged problem NOT an essential part of the current system? How is the problem NOT a natural element of the current system? Can you prove that removing the current system will NOT remove the harm, that it will continue despite a change in policy? Will the harm continue to exist DESPITE a change in the system? Prove that this change will be fruitless. Can you prove that the harm is NOT UNIQUE to the system itself? (i.e. if it is replaced, the harm won t go away?) Might duplication, waste, and/or inertia exist as a result of removing the current system? o Ways to DENY Inherency: TREND ARGUMENTS Your goal is to expose trends in reduction of harm o Prove that the present system is moving rapidly toward the desired end result and that change is not necessary because the system will fix itself. i.e. Affirmativeà significance in number of people without healthcare i.e. Negative Refutation via trend analysisà over the past 20 years, a combination of increased health insurance coverage, health maintenance organizations and government programs has given access to 95% of the population and it s getting better. MINOR REPAIRS Your goal is to prove that only minor adjustments to current system are necessary as opposed to major overhaul o While, admittedly, there may be some defect to the present system, a substantial change is unnecessary o Minor repairs are often effective and less costly

5 o Prove that repair will actually work is it sufficient or will follow- up be needed (which would then shut your ideas down ultimately...) o be prepared, also, to refute possible harms these minor changes could make Prove that there are no/less undesirable side effects DISCRETIONARY POWERS Your goal is to prove that the harm does not lie in the system, it lies in those that run it o the present system is expected to do a good job; the problem lies in administrative power o if laws of the system are enforced, the problem would be eliminated ATTACK THE PLAN/SOLVENCYà challenge the affirmative s ability to solve the problem o With this claim, your goal is to prove the weakness that lies in the affirmative team s plan proposed; that the installation of the proposition will NOT solve the problem that the current system is allegedly causing. o To attack solvency, consider the following questions: Why won t the proposition fix the problem? How? How can you prove this? Might more harms arise as a direct/indirect result of adopting new plan? Are those harms greater in weight than the harms inflicted by the current system? o Strategies for exposing the weakness of the Affirmative s solvency: Attack the WORKABILITY of the plan Focus on the availability of resources, technology, and workers that the new plan would require; any shortages and the plan won t work o i.e. there may be adequate funding for a new medical plan, BUT no dedicated/trained staff to carry it out! IF the affirmative uses ANALOGIES to support workability, consider the following REFUTATIONS: o Analogy may be deemed INAPPROPRIATE if The time frames are different; the working conditions might have changed If two different countries are used, because separate countries MAY yield separate results

6 If the comparison lies between a pilot program and a national program because a limited versus a vast undertaking may yield different results ATTITUDES and Circumvention Expose the fact that the alleged problem will continue despite policy change because societal attitudes will allow the harm to continue to exist o i.e. If Crime (attitude) is the root of the problem, a policy change won t matter Alleged Harm = Toxic waste dumping Policy Change = Money given not to dump Circumvention= criminal ways will continue by using money to create more toxic waste to dump DISADVANTAGESà additional harms that accompany change o Perhaps the most important stock issue for the Negative Team!! o With this claim, your goal is to highlight the additional harms that go along with the acceptance of the proposition for change to the present system. Does the new plan augment the problem as opposed to solve it? i.e. to solve poverty, the affirmative proposes an expensive plan, which will merely increase the level of debt i.e. to solve national security, the affirmative proposes a costly and ineffective weapons system, which will merely leave the country more vulnerable to attack Who will this new plan affect? Maximize your reach! What detriments will result from the installation of the new plan? How will the country be hindered in the long- run? How do these disadvantages of the new plan compare to the disadvantages of the present system? How can you posit these disadvantages as less than that of the (current) status quo? How will the new plan undermine the individual citizen, the citizen s family/work life, the community in which the citizen lives? How will the new plan add complexity the procedures the citizen currently goes through regarding the topic? Do the disadvantages of the new plan outweigh the advantages? How can you prove this?

7 Are there new disadvantages, those separate from the originals, that will result from the new plan? i.e. to stop the drug problem, the affirmative suggests stricter border patrol/inspection, which will ultimately put a strain on our relationship with bordering allies = new harm! i.e. creating more jobs for people might actually increase pollution and inflation = new harm! How can you highlight the uniqueness of the present system, providing reasons why it is not as susceptible to the types of disadvantages that the new plan is?

8 STEP FOUR consists of checking the STRENGTH of your RESEARCH and the power that lies in your refutations as a result. As you refute the claims listed above, you MUST accompany EACH with PROOF, which consists of evidence and sound, logical reasoning. o Questions to consider when evaluating sources for inclusion in your argument: Does this information directly relate to my position on the topic? Is the information contradictory in any way to my point? Where might I insert this information to make my point most effectively? How can I use it to my advantage? Which claim(s) could this information refute? Would it work best in arguing against the alleged harms or would it serve a purpose in denying the new plan? Is the source reliable? Does his/her/their opinion matter when it comes to your topic? (i.e. a literature professor s opinion in the medical field might hold less pull than a doctor s know who you are seeking the information). Could the source be challenged by my opposition in terms of bias? i.e. a biased source is likely to provide biased information in favor of their opinion as opposed to a neutral party o the NRA clearly has one- sided views regarding gun control, so this source could easily be challenged by the opposition! What proof can I anticipate that the Affirmative Team might use? How can I challenge their proof with my own?