|
General:
Affirmatives have the advantage of knowing exactly what they will
debate before the round ever begins; however, they also possess
three disadvantages
(1) the burden of proof;
(2) if the problem could be easily
solved, it would have already been done; and
(3) in a stock issue case, they
must win every stock issue.
With these disadvantages in mind, the Negative can construct a
strategy that will defeat virtually every Affirmative case.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Familiarity with Topic: No strategy can substitute for knowledge. The more a debater knows, the more likely he will be able to locate flaws in the Affirmative case. Prepare generic arguments before the round and be able to locate needed information during the round.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Utilize The 1st CX: Develop a list of questions for CX that require only short responses, and then challenge all seven strategic goals listed in the CX Strategies. You must pin the Affirmative down by requiring specific answers. If you allow the affirmative to be vague, they'll be able to worm their way out of your traps.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Present
A Challenge in 1NC: The 1NC should rigorously
challenge the Affirmative's position. Instead of trying to go
one-on-one with evidence, use "The Affirmative must prove .
. ." language. Challenge all areas of their case, even areas
they have not yet developed. Each issue should be complete,
short, and relevant to the affirmative's case. Enter as many
issues into the debate as possible - your goals is to prevent the
2AC from extending their arguments and to find flaws in their
case - the more you can accomplish here, the stronger your
position will be in the 2NC. A 1NC outline might look like the
following:
- Topicality:
Present at least two topicality issues. Don't just challenge how
their case applies to the resolution; challenge their topicality
standards.
- Significance:
Challenge each of their harms. Don't just provide
counter-evidence; challenge the evidence that they use.
- Inherency:
Challenge each of their inherency contentions. Don't just provide
counter-evidence; question their ability to remove inherent
barriers.
- Solvency:
Present at least four solvency barriers. Provide whatever
counter-evidence you have that demonstrates their plan won't
work, and, more importantly, point out loopholes in their plan.
- Disadvantages:
Present at least one PMN disadvantage. If time permits, present
the outlines for other full-blown DAs that apply to the case.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Develop
the Winning Arguments in 2NC: After the 2AC, all of
the weaknesses of the Affirmative's case should be revealed. The
2NC can then proceed to offer 5 or 6 well developed arguments
that will destroy what remains of the Affirmative's position.
Attacks from the 1NC should only be covered if they show promise
and need further development. New topicality, significance, and
inherency arguments can be entered if new flaws have been
discovered.
- Solvency
- Inherent Barrier: If they do not solve the barrier
problem, develop this issue. Solvency - Workability: Develop any
flaws in workability solvency.
- Solvency
- PMN: Fully develop at least one issue on Alternate
Causality, Future Impact, or Circumvention. Fully develop at
least one PMN Disadvantage.
- Disadvantages:
Present at least four well-developed generic and workability
disadvantages.
- Rebuttals:
Follow the duties outlined under Speaker Duties.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Weighing The Debate: If the negative was able to win one or two major issues they should win the round; however, this is not always true. Some judges ask the question, "What will it hurt to try the Affirmative?" The 2NR must weigh the Affirmative's advantages against the DAs. State something like, "If the Affirmative has proven the other stock issues, and we believe they have not, then the plan still doesn't warrant the resolution because the costs clearly outweigh the advantages."
Return to top
Return to main directory