Title: The Negative Position
1The Negative Position
- The Negative Strategy
- Refutation of Stock Issues
- Denying the Problem
- Refutation of Individual Arguments
2Why Learn?
- Why learn to argue the negative?
- You dont think a change is necessary.
- You dont think a plan of action is appropriate.
- You dont think the reasons for change are
correct. - You dont think the analysis of the problem is
correct.
3Refuting a Claim
- Two basic choices for refuting any claim.
- There isnt sufficient proof.
- The claim itself is not true.
4The Negative Strategy
- You can choose to argue any one or combination of
the stock issues - Harm
- Significance
- Inherency
- Solvency
- Disadvantages
- Your choice is the negative strategy.
5The Negative Strategy
- Your strategy should be presented in your
constructive speeches. - It is too late to present part of it in the
rebuttals. - You need to work together with your partner to
decide your strategy.
6The Negative Strategy
- The Shotgun Approach
- The Sharpshooter Approach
7The Shotgun Approach
- The shotgun approach is to argue anything and
everything that comes to mind, hoping something
will be good.
8Problems
- Your arguments may contradict each other.
- Contradictions reduce the credibility of the
negative position. - Not enough time.
- To adequately argue all points.
- To develop detailed, complete, and memorable
arguments.
9The Sharpshooter Approach
- Focus only on one stock issue.
10Problem
- It means you must win this one stock issue or
else you lose the debate. - Lets the affirmative easily win the other issues.
11Conclusion
- The best negative strategy is to attack the
affirmative on several aspects together.
12Three Common Strategies
- Topicality
- Defense of the Present System
- The Counterplan
- Note Not only these are possible.
13Topicality
- It is a preemptive argument.
- If you choose this one, you should only argue
this one because you dont want to contradict
yourself. - When might you want to do this?
- They really are not topical.
- You have no evidence and no idea about the
affirmative case and plan.
14Topicality
- If you are very convincing early and the
affirmative runs out of ways to rebut your
arguments, then it could end up being a short
debate!
15Topicality
- RESOLVED That school campuses should be open.
- The affirmative plan is to keep the classrooms
unlocked on Saturday and Sunday. - An open campus means a student can leave campus
at anytime.
16Defend the Present System
- This is the strategy that is most commonly argued
by the negative. - Argue there is no reason to try and change the
status quo.
17Defend the Present System
- The affirmative plan will bring more harm than
good. - Harms in the present system are not as great as
the harms caused by the plan. - The harms reduced by the plan is less than the
harms caused by the plan.
18Defend the Present System
Compare harms of the status quo with harms of the
plan.
Compare the harms reduced by the plan and the
harms of the plan.
Plan
Reduced
SQ
SQ
Plan
19Defend the Present System
- The harms do not exist.
- Provide counter-evidence
- The harms are not significant (or as the
affirmative says). - Provide counter-evidence
- Present system is solving the problem.
- Old programs
- New programs
20Defend the Present System
- Concede that nothing can be done about the harms.
21Example
- RESOLVED The government should invest more money
into space technology. - Harm The sun is getting bigger and will burn up
the earth. - Plan Develop a way to shrink the sun.
- Argue Cannot stop the suns growth.
22Stop
23The Counterplan
- Admits the status quo needs to be changed.
- The negative presents their own plan.
- Argues that the negatives plan is better than
the affirmatives plan. - The burden of proof is on the negative.
- This is a more advanced strategy.
24The Counterplan
- When might you use it?
- When the affirmative harms and plan are simple,
and you feel you can easily show more harms and
have a plan to solve them. - When you think it is too difficult to argue
against the affirmative along the stock issues.
25Why Have a Negative Strategy?
- Identifies for the judge (and the affirmative
team) the reason why you oppose the adoption of
the affirmative case. - Reduces chances for contradictions.
- Narrows the debate.
26Refutation of Stock Issues
- A key negative responsibility is to refute the
stock issues - Harm
- Significance
- Inherency
- Solvency
- Also responsible for identifying disadvantages (a
negative stock issue)
27Harm or Advantage
- The affirmative can claim a harm in the status
quo or an advantage that is being missed in the
status quo. - Hard to refute harms that are widely accepted
like poverty, disease, etc. So better to attack
these harms significance.
28Significance
- Try to show the harm is not a serious as the
affirmative claims. - Can argue
- Most of the harm is voluntary (for a higher good)
- Advantage is not essential and thus not worth the
cost - Request quantification of the impact
29Inherency
- Deny that the cause of the harm has been properly
identified. - Argue the present system can adjust and eliminate
or reduce the harm. - In a comparative advantage case, argue that the
present system is in the process of achieving the
advantages.
30Inherency
- Can also use
- Trend arguments
- Minor repair arguments
- Discretionary power arguments
31Trend Arguments
- Use trend arguments
- The present system is moving as rapidly as
possible toward the desired end. - Be careful to distinguish between current value,
rate of change of the value, and rate of change
of the rate of change of the value!
32Minor Repairs
- Argue that only minor repairs are needed to the
present system. - Negative must prove
- Minor repair is not within the proposition
- Minor repair will work
- Be ready to defend against arguments minor repair
has disadvantages. - Minor repair is similar to a counterplan.
33Discretionary Powers
- Argue that people can make their own choices
(they have discretion), both individuals and
administrators. - So you cant force people to make the good or
right decisions. - So decisions may be easily changed in the future
and so the problem is not inherent.
34Solvency
- Argue that the plan will not eliminate or reduce
the harms in a need-plan case. - Argue that the plan will not achieve the
advantages in a comparative advantage case. - Argue against specific affirmative claims or
bring in new considerations.
35Workability
- Argues whether the plan can work.
- Lacks the necessary resources
- People
- Money
- Time
36Workability
- Affirmative argues similar plan worked before,
elsewhere or in a pilot program. - It may have worked before but conditions are now
different. - It may have worked somewhere else, but the
situation is crucially different in Taiwan. - It may have worked in a pilot program, but it
wont work in a full-fledged program.
37Circumvention
- Argue that peoples attitude will not change and
these attitudes are what cause or allow the
harms. - The plan just treats the symptoms and not the
disease. - People can get around the plan.
- Focus on the sinful nature of humans.
38Disadvantages
- It is hard to argue against a good affirmative
case in relation to the four stock issues harm,
significance, inherency and solvency. - So arguing disadvantages of the plan is the
negatives last resort. - Still best to combine arguments of disadvantages
with other stock issues.
39Disadvantages
- Argue that the plan has side effects.
- The burden of proof is on the negative.
- Has similar parts as the affirmatives case.
- Disadvantages (harm)
- More than advantages (significance)
- Direct result of the plan (inherency)
40Harms of the Affirmative Plan
- Two types of harms from the plan
- Increases the harm it is meant to reduce
- Causes harms that are different from the ones it
is meant to reduce.
41Disadvantages greater than Advantages
- The negative must show that the harm caused by
the plan is greater (more significant) than the
harms reduced by the plan. - May use the straw that broke the camels back
argument.
42Disadvantages greater than Advantages
- There may be a conflict of values in deciding
which is greater so the negative must defend the
value system used.
43Relationship Between the Plan and Harm
- You must show the plan actually would cause the
harms (the disadvantages). - You must clearly show the link between the plan
and the cause of the harm.
44Uniqueness
- The negative must argue the uniqueness of the
disadvantage to the plan. - Must argue that if we dont implement the plan,
then we will not have the disadvantage.
45Denying the Problem
- Challenging the Affirmative Proof
- Counterposition
- Combining Challenges and Counterpositions
- Conceding the Argument
- Applying the Types of Refutation
46Challenging the Affirmative Proof
- Argue that the affirmative has failed to meet its
burden of proof. - Ask for evidence or proof.
- Question the reliability of the evidence or
proof. Best to do this with your own evidence.
47Counterposition
- Establish the real truth as different from what
the affirmative claims. - The negative has the burden of proof for a
counterposition argument. - Conclude your argument by saying if it is A then
it cant be B.
48Combining Challenges and Counterpositions
- Best to try and combine both challenges to the
affirmatives proof and offering a
counterposition.
49Conceding the Argument
- Conceding an argument may be beneficial to you.
- It will give you more time to attack a weaker
affirmative argument. - Explain why conceding the particular argument is
not important to the important issues of the
debate (i.e. focus on what are the important
issues).
50Applying the Types of Refutation
- Four possible positions on any argument
- (1) Refute the adequacy of the affirmative proof.
- (2) Establish the truth of a counterposition.
- (3) Combine (1) and (2).
- (4) Concede the argument but explain.
51Applying the Types of Refutation
- Can conduct refutation on three levels
- How each soldier will fight (who leads attacks
and counterattacks). - The tactics of engagement.
- The overall battle plan to be at the right place
at the right time.
52Refutation of Individual Arguments
- Generalizations
- Causal Arguments
- Sign Arguments
- Testimony
53Generalizations
- A generalization is saying something is true
because there are a number of examples where it
is true.
54Generalizations
- How to refute a generalization
- Time Frame
- Number of Examples
- Counterexample
- Relevance
55Time Frame
- The examples may be out dated (too long ago).
- The examples are unique due to unique situations
(i.e. not typical). - The future is different from the past.
56Time Frame
- The negative has the burden of proof to show the
present or future will be different from the past.
57Number of Examples
- Argue there are not enough examples to make the
generalization (i.e. the affirmative has made a
hasty generalization). - Similar to the unique situation or atypical
argument.
58Number of Examples
- How much is enough is often a matter of
judgement. - Can use simple proportion (percent).
- Argue the number of examples is not proportional
to the conclusion. - Give more counterexamples than examples.
59Counterexamples
- A counter example is an example that is different
from the affirmatives examples. - It causes one to doubt the generalizations drawn
from the examples.
60Relevance
- Challenge whether the examples really support the
generalization. - Argue the situation of an example is different
from the situation of the generalization.
61Causal Arguments
- One event causes another.
- How to refute Causal Arguments
- Finding the Real Cause
- Multiple Causality
- Counteracting Causality
62Finding the Real Cause
- Argue the affirmatives cause is only an
intermediate cause. They do not have the
fundamental cause. - Argue that without solving the fundamental (the
real or root) cause, the problem will still
continue even if you remove the intermediate
cause.
63Multiple Causality
- There may be more than one cause of a harm.
- There may be interlocking causes (you cant get
reduce the harm with eliminating all of the
causes).
64Counteracting Causality
- There may be counteracting causes, a
self-corrective mechanism. - The present system can correct itself
(eventually) so the harm is not inherent, wont
get worse and worse. - The plan will set in motion some counteracting
forces and so it cannot solve the problem.
65Sign Arguments
- A sign argument says that when X appears, so does
Y. - It does not explicitly say X causes Y, but it
implies X causes Y, or there is some connection. - Useful when exact cause is still not known.
66Countersigns
- Signs that give different conclusions than the
signs that the affirmative presents. - Similar to counterexamples.
67Affirmative Emphasis
- When you have signs and countersigns, you need to
distinguish which ones are more telling or
intrinsic. - When it is hard to tell which signs are intrinsic
or substantive, then you need to argue which one
is more consistent or more often accompanies the
event.
68Testimony
- A testimony is a statement of opinion.
- How to refute a testimony
- Reliable Source
- Consensus
- Disinterested Testimony
- Recent Testimony
- Values Consistent with Community
69Reliable Sources
- Check the source of the testimony.
- Is the source reliable?
- This is why it is important to put information
about the source on the evidence. - This is one reason why information on the
Internet is not always reliable.
70Consensus
- Is there a consensus among experts?
- If there is substantial disagreement among
experts, then expert testimony is not a good
basis for determining policy. - The side with the burden of proof would lose the
argument because of presumption.
71Disinterested Testimony
- Does the person giving the testimony have
something to gain by the acceptance of the
policy? - If so, the testimony can be questioned.
- The opposite could also work against the negative.
72Recent Testimony
- Recent testimony is better (just like recent
evidence is better). - Must also argue there is a difference between the
time of the testimonies (i.e. something is
crucially different).
73Values Consistent with Community
- Experts may not hold values consistent with the
community. - Debate exists within the framework of democratic
values. - So debate is concerned about the value of the
majority (community) over the value of minority
(experts, lobbyists).
74Yeah! Were Done!