Negative Attacks - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Negative AttacksSlide2

Ways for the Negative to Win

Take out a stock issue: inherency, harms, solvency, or topicality.

Take out all advantages of the affirmative case, proving that the affirmative can not provide a comparative advantage over the status quo.

Prove that the disadvantages of implementing the affirmative plan outweigh the advantages of implementing the plan.

Prove that the negative counter plan is superior to the affirmative plan.

Prove that the critique outweighs the affirmative case.Slide3

Inherency

Takeout

Defend

the status quo, by attacking the affirmative inherency analysis.

Laws/Problems/Procedures aren’t causing problems. (Structural Inherency Takeout)

Attitudes of those in power aren’t causing problems (Attitudinal Inherency Takeout)

There is not a persistent/permanent problem in the status quo (Existential Inherency Takeout.)

Turn

What

the affirmative team claims is causing a problem is actually preventing or solving a problem.Slide4

Harm

Takeout

Defend

the status quo by demonstrating that the affirmative harms are not

significant.

Show

that the policies of the status quo have already addressed the affirmative harms.

Turn

Attack the affirmative

by

demonstrating that the “harms” they claim are actually good things in the status quo.

For

example, some might say that an arms race inevitably leads to violence, but a negative might claim that a mutual arms deterrent actually keeps us safe. Slide5

Workability Attack

Attack the workability of the affirmative

plan.

S

how

that they will not be able to gain an advantage over the status quo due to a problem with the funding, administration, or enforcement of their plan.

You

need to prove that the limitations of the plan will prevent affirmative solvency.

Workability

arguments should always be connected to solvency. Slide6

Solvency

Takeouts

Alternative Causality

Prove

that the affirmatives can not solve for the harms they claim because they do not address the correct cause of the problem.

Suggest

that because an additional or fundamental source of harms will remain post plan the harms will not truly be eliminated.

Solvency attack

Demonstrate

that the affirmative plan does not effectively solve for all of the harms that they claim because they will not be able to completely eliminate the problem.

For

example, a plan addressing the mediation needs of the mentally ill homeless population may not be able to guarantee that the homeless will seek help by going to local hospitals. If the affirmative can not prove that the homeless will actually receive the mandated medication they may not be able to claim solvency. Slide7

Solvency

Turn

Prove that the affirmative solvency will actually trigger negative effects.

These

effects frequently directly contradict what the affirmative claims to accomplish.

For

example, the affirmatives might argue that preventing the erosion of our “Right to Privacy” would protect the American way of life. The negatives may be able to effectively argue that by protecting this right, we will cripple the capabilities of our intelligence agencies making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. They would then suggest that any such attack would ultimately destroy the way of life that the affirmatives claim to protect. Slide8

Advantage

Takeouts

Take out the harms or the solvency of a specific advantage.

The

affirmatives must effectively defend both halves of an advantage for it to stand.

Prove that the affirmative does not provide a “comparative advantage” over the status

quo.

Suggest

that they do not solve for significant harms or that they create larger problems than they

eliminate.Slide9

Advantage

Turn

Prove that what the affirmatives claim will be an advantage over the status quo will actually have a negative effect on the status quo.

Essentially

an advantage becomes a disadvantage.

For

example, the affirmatives might claim that the end of the death penalty would be a good thing (protection of the innocent inmates), while the negatives contend that the elimination of the death penalty would be a bad thing (increase in crime = increase in innocent victims). Slide10

Topicality

Show that the affirmative case/plan is not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Slide11

Elements of the Topicality Attack

A. Definition

B. Violation

C. Standards

D. Voting RulesSlide12

Definition

This is the interpretation of the word(s) in the resolution that are being questioned.

Evidence to support the definition must be cited.Slide13

Violation

This is the explanation of how the affirmative has

violated

the definition.Slide14

Standards

These are the reasons the negative definition(s) are

superior

to the affirmative.Slide15

Voting Rules

Remind the judge that topicality is a voting issue.

If the affirmative team loses even one of the stock issues (Inherency, Harm, Solvency, Topicality), they MUST lose the round.Slide16

Winning Topicality

The negative definition comes from a better source.

Legal definitions and definitions from experts are better.

The negative interpretation is more grammatical.

The negative interpretation is more fair in the division of ground between negative and affirmative.

The negative will always want to argue that the resolution should limit the scope of discussion.Slide17

Justification Attack

Demonstrate that the affirmative advantages are not significant enough to justify the proposed change in policy.

Prove

that the plan results do not justify the time, money, resources etc. that the affirmative team needs.

Often

connected to a disadvantage suggesting that the plan will do more harm than good

.Slide18

Disadvantage

Prove that

if

the affirmative plan is implemented it will cause a significant – if unintentional -- negative side effect

Prove

that this disadvantage outweighs the affirmative advantage

.Slide19

Types of DAs

Brink

We are on the

brink

of the disadvantage and the smallest change by the affirmative team will push us over

.

It is a VERY powerful argument.

It can be difficult to find good and/or current information to support this type of DA.

Linear Risk

The affirmative plan moves us closer to a global disaster.

There is no way of knowing how severe the impact will be.

This is a little easier to prove, but it may be hard to prove that it outweighs the advantages of the plan.Slide20

Elements of a DA

A

.

Uniqueness

B. Links (Internal/External)

C. ImpactsSlide21

Uniqueness

You show that the DA will ONLY occur if the affirmative plan is put into place.

If the affirmative states that the DA already exists, the negative must show how the affirmative plan will increase the problem.

The more the plan increases the DA, the better.Slide22

Links

The affirmative plan CAUSES the disadvantage.

If the affirmative plan has no link to the disadvantage, the negative will not be able to prove it.

External

This is what the PLAN does wrong.

Internal

These are the steps between the external links and

the impacts.Slide23

Impacts

The results of the plan (the disadvantage) outweighs the good accomplished by the plan.

There may be a number of “dominoes” between the plan and the disadvantage.

You MUST have quality evidence to support these assumptions.Slide24

Counterplan

Develop a negative plan that solves for the affirmative harms without triggering the negative disadvantages

.

This can be problematic as the negative team does not want change, and you will be admitting that there is a problem with the status quo. Slide25

Critique

Attack the merits of the resolution, the affirmative presentation, or debate itself.