Squirrel Cases Non-Representative Affirmatives Theory Refutation The Argument

Non-Representative Affirmatives:

Some cases are so unusual, so trivial, so narrow, or so unimportant that they do not support the resolution; these are said to be non-representative. Some debaters call them Squirrel Cases (see Chasing Squirrels). They have strategic advantages in that they have an element of surprise and that refutation evidence is almost non-existent. This section of the topicality block is intended to provide you with a weapon against such cases.

Return to top
Return to main directory

Theory:

This block is based upon a small amount debate theory, experience seeing debaters struggle with trivial cases, and a lot of wishful thinking. I have yet to see, either in a book or within a debate round, an effective means of dealing with these cases. I hope this will work.

Return to top
Return to main directory

Refutation:

Known ways that an Affirmative might respond to this block include: Alternative Justification: It is not the responsibility of the Affirmative to persuade the judge to accept all conceivable interpretations of the debate resolution. To justify affirmation of the debate resolution, a team need only successfully defend one of its many possible meanings. Rebuttal: The Affirmative must plan and organize a convincing justification for adopting the resolution. Just as a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, so must the affirmative establish a prima facie case against the current system. The Affirmative attempts to prove that there is one bad apple in the barrel; we assert that the barrel is large and that we shouldn't throw out thousands of good apples because of one that's a little ripe. The Affirmative's case is too narrow - it's unusual and trivial, and it does not affirm the resolution.

Return to top
Return to main directory

The Argument:

In a true atypical or squirrel case, you will need to run your entire 1NC using the following block. The 2NC will need to refute any major attacks on this block and they can add any additional arguments that you have been able to think of between the 1NC and the 2NC. Issue:

• The Affirmative violates topicality; the Affirmative's sample policy is too narrow to affirm the resolution. Premise: The purpose of the Affirmative is to affirm the validity of the resolution, not just to prove the desirability of a single, narrow, isolated policy within the resolution.
• Standard: The standard by which we can judge whether the Affirmative fulfills its obligation is significance. Not the significant harms asserted by the Affirmative, but by answering the question, "Is the Affirmative's proposal significant enough to justify the entire resolution?"
• Application of Standard: In order to apply this standard, we must turn to the typical tests employed in judging the validity of an inductive argument: Is the sample of sufficient quantity? Is the sample representative of the whole? Are the premises true? Can the conclusion be derived from the premises?
• Contention: If we are able to demonstrate that any one of the following three assertions are true, then have sufficiently demonstrated that the Affirmative has not proven the validity of the resolution, and we have, therefore, earned a negative ballot.
• Assertion: The Affirmative's proposition is of an insufficient quantity to draw an adequate conclusion. OR The Affirmative's proposition is atypical and, therefore, is not representative of the whole. OR Using what evidence is available to us, we will attempt to show that the Affirmative's premises are flawed. Observations: The Affirmative does not fulfill the standard:
• Observation: The Affirmative's proposition is of insufficient quantity. (Compare statistical significant data from what would be considered a normal Affirmative to what the Affirmative presents. Your purpose is to show that the Affirmative is trivial and represents less than 2% of all case possibilities Use the term ALLEGED - don't affirm the resolution.) OR The Affirmative's proposition is atypical. (Compare typical Affirmative cases with the Affirmative's case. Your purpose is to demonstrate that out of all the possible cases from which they could have chosen, their case is atypical and does not represent the major concerns intended by the Wording Committee.) OR The Affirmative's premises are flawed. (As much as possible, attack the normal stock issues as you normally would in a typical Affirmative case. This may be difficult seeing how the Affirmative's entire purpose is to deny you evidence. The more unusual the case, the more likely you will prove assertions #1 and #2.)
• Conclusion: The Affirmative fails to fulfill the obligations for all three assertions, any one of which is sufficient to demonstrate that they have failed to prove the validity of the resolution. In doing so they are nontopical. We ask for a negative ballot.

Return to top
Return to main directory