Skip to content
July 11, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Thinking about getting ready for small affirmatives on the negative

Its usually pretty easy to have a 3 generic go to strategies:
1) politics + CP
2) process counterplan + DA
3) two or three K strategies

As a last ditch effort you can use a backfile check (ie Malthus or death good or other counterintuitive arguements).
1) mechanisms
2) generic case negative
3) advantage & impact takeouts & turns
Obviously case turns.

The obvious answer means that you have to go one or two steps deeper than they have.

Also, just be better at comparison & integration & big picture.

I remember watching a camp lecture on strategies that win the most:
1) counterplan + DA (that doesn’t link to the counterplan or links less to the counterplan than the affirmative) + case
2) critique.
3) topicality/theory
attempting to winning debate on disadvantages alone is generally not going to be a good long term strategy. And realize that most judges have a different threshold and understanding for theory/topicality debates–this is usually only a good strategy to get them to link to your DA or K….or if you have a pretty clean kill (ie obvious violation that doesn’t link to the whole topic)–the most egregious example of this is a truely extra-topical affirmative.

This should focus you a bit more on prepping for counterplans–if you don’t already.

I think one of the best strategies which is underutilized is realizing how cards in affirmative files (particularly systemic change affs or fix the system affs) are often arguments for the neg (ie their aff won’t do much of anything). Also, in general using the mechanism the aff uses as a means to win debates (or at least take out large parts of the affirmative). Making quality analytic arguments–using true and/or historically and/or intuitively grounded arguments.

What does this get back to…..identifying argument by 1) type 2) impact 3) grounding/credibility. Using argument type (or schema) to isolate what are the types of arguments which are made against–using argument similarity (ie link story) to your advantage. For instance, social movements disad has certain assumptions about it which its smart to point out. The immigration disad (from a couple years ago) which relied on us having a low economy had certain fundamental issues.

Focusing on the offense….but extending the defense and implicating it. It shouldn’t take much time to extend your defense on the aff. case.

And on the aff….set your aff up to answer the counterplan (ie an advantage or two which explains why US is key linked to your solvency mech). Also, add-on, add-on, add-on……and having a nuanced way to answer the case negative. Understanding that literature when taken as a whole.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: