Skip to content
December 30, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Yet another post on thinking about negative strategy for your reading pleasure

As a general rule you should be able to have some answer on major impact areas. This is why there are files for impact defense. The only reason why you wouldn’t run impact defense perhaps…..if if the impact is the same as one of your disads. Even then the impact defense can serve a purpose–a way to mess with their head…..or a way for them to concede a particular

On the negative… to you get leverage:
1. counterplans that solve most of the case…or at least whole advantage areas. You should know when you run a given C/P what their go to argument will be (for instance with federalism its probably going to be hegemony, because the assumption is a strong USFG signal is necessary to maintain hege)
2. ks with alternatives + framework
3. disad turns the case
4. impact comparison
5. generic case negative…..impact areas…..and solvency debate

Disad turns the case is probably the most under-used. Quality counterplans might be the next.
If you don’t have a disad turns the case file… should. Also, even if you don’t…..if you win economy or hegemony…..or any other big impact you should be able to say how that interacts with the core claims & core mechanisms & core impacts of the affirmative case.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: