Negative Attacks

1. Negative Attacks

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Workability Attack • Attack the workability of the affirmative plan. • Show 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. Topicality • Show that the affirmative case/plan is not a reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

11. Elements of the Topicality Attack A. Definition B. Violation C. Standards D. Voting Rules

12. Definition • This is the interpretation of the word(s) in the resolution that are being questioned. • Evidence to support the definition must be cited.

13. Violation • This is the explanation of how the affirmative has violated the definition.

14. Standards • These are the reasons the negative definition(s) are superior to the affirmative.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Elements of a DA A. Uniqueness B. Links (Internal/External) C. Impacts

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

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