CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, COMPETITION NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS • ** Remember, Cross-X Debates are POLICY debates ** • In Cross-X you build negative arguments, instead of negative cases. • The difference: Negative arguments can be separated into defensive & offensive negative arguments. More in depth & well rounded than negative cases. • Affirmative Teams typically use Stock Issues to build their case, so you will use those stock issues to challenge the arguments they developed. • We will use Defensive Negative arguments to challenge 3 stock issues: harm, inherency, and solvency. CHALLENGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HARM STOCK ISSUE • The most fundamental negative argument you can make • A harm is an unwanted problem resulting from an action OR inaction of the current system (government, political, social system) • Affirmative will establish that the harms are significant – You will CHALLENGE the significance of that harm • Start with challenging the scope and importance of the harm issue – The burden of proof is always on the Affirmative Team • We will discuss strategies to challenge the significance of harms: CHALLENGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HARM STOCK ISSUE • 1. Challenge Statistics and numbers • One of the most common strategies of the Affirmative Team • Stats and Numbers are persuasive • You will challenge their statistics by having prepared statistics and data of your own • Have a “counter-statistic” prepared for each that they present • This provides the Judges with a different perspective • Your goal is to counter the affirmative’s position and establish some doubt in the Judge’s mind when they are determining the validity of the Affirmative Team & their points CHALLENGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HARM STOCK ISSUE • 2 – Evidence – Closely examine their evidence. • “If their evidence sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” • Challenge anything and everything that appears to be too convincing, or too one-sided. • This includes poorly written evidence, poorly researched evidence, and poorly explained evidence. • Point out these flaws to demonstrate the AT is biased in their research / prep CHALLENGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HARM STOCK ISSUE • 3. Bias – A bias is a prejudice toward a specific idea or cause. It attempts to persuade an audience using one sided information. • Motivated by politics, economics, publicity, emotions • Always ask for additional evidence and be sure to mention from “unbiased sources.” CHALLENGING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HARM STOCK ISSUE • 4. Presumption – A presumption is a belief that needs further proof before it can be correct or incorrect. • Example: In court, you are innocent UNTIL proven guilty. • The affirmative team must clearly prove that you have been negligent and have done a poor job of dealing with / challenging the scenario or resolution presented. • You are considered innocent until the affirmative team proves otherwise. • Use evidence, examples, or testimony to counter any claim made by the Affirmative Team – You are NOT RESPONSIBLE for proving yourself to be innocent or correct, ONLY answering specific attacks made by the Affirmative CHALLENGING THE INHERENT BARRIER OF THE INHERENCY STOCK ISSUE • 1. The Affirmative must establish that an inherent barrier prevents the present system from solving the harm scenarios. • 2. The Affirmative case will attempt to create a scenario that claims the present system is doing nothing, too little, the wrong thing, or doesn’t care about the debated issue • 3.YOUR argument (the Negative) should claim the present system IS working well, hasn’t had the opportunity to solve an issue, or does care and will solve the harm if the opportunity and resources are given. • To be successful, demonstrate an inherent barrier DOES NOT EXIST. CHALLENGING THE INHERENT BARRIER OF THE INHERENCY STOCK ISSUE • - After establishing an inherent barrier exists, the AT (Affirmative Team) will claim the present system and barrier are inseparable. Meaning, if we stick to the present system, there is no way to correct the issue. The system is responsible for the problem. • This claim is the only way for the AT to be successful • It is equally key for YOU to show that the issue can be solved with maintaining the present system • As the negative team, you will attempt to minimize the harm scenario, and then claim if a harm exists, a new plan is not necessary because the present system can and will solve the issue. CHALLENGING THE INHERENT BARRIER OF THE INHERENCY STOCK ISSUE • The next step in arguing inherency is to determine if the barrier is STRUCTURAL OR ATTITUDINAL. • Structural Inherency – deals with laws, regulations, guidelines, etc. • Easiest type to repair • You can demonstrate the current system is flexible enough to solve harm scenarios • Attitudinal Inherency – Harder for the AT to prove, and harder for you to create a defense against a claim. • AT may claim racism / sexism exists in a current system, therefor a systematic change is required. • You will respond with current systems are always improving legislation and situations – Meaning a new plan / system is NOT needed THINK AND RESPOND IN NOTEBOOKS, THEN DISCUSS • Which would be easier for the negative team to challenge and why? (A structural inherency OR an attitudinal inherency?) • (will be submitted on Canvas as part of review assignment due Jan 6) WHICH WOULD BE EASIER FOR THE NEGATIVE TEAM TO CHALLENGE AND WHY? • A structural inherency is easier to challenge • WHY? • Laws and regulations can be changed by a current system • Thus, they are NOT an inherent barrier • Attitudes such as sexism, racism, etc. are ingrained and more difficult to eradicate from existing systems • Attitudes vary among different people – Sometimes people are not straightforward with their true beliefs, making them harder to detect, and harder to correct WHAT IS AN INHERENT BARRIER? • To summarize, an inherent barrier refers to harm that cannot be solved by the current system, because it cannot logically be eliminated from that system. • In your notebooks, answer then discuss (Submit on Canvas): • What are some current examples of inherent barriers in the United States? Explain and be prepared to discuss. CHALLENGING THE SOLVENCY STOCK ISSUE • Solvency is the next stock issue that the AT uses to build its case • Solvency is the claim that adopting the AT’s plan will solve the harm scenarios that are presented • As the negative team, it is your job to prove that the existing system can solve these harm scenarios, OR that the AT’s plan WILL NOT SOLVE the harm scenarios • To challenge, consider challenging: general solvency, funding, time frame, implementation strategies, enforcement, inherency, and fiat CHALLENGING THE SOLVENCY STOCK ISSUE • 1. General Solvency: Use a common sense approach – Use words such as: impractical, radical, unrealistic to give the AT’s plan a bad impression. Doing so, the AT must defend their position, which gives you a good start • 2. Funding: The AT should explain how they will pay for their proposal. • First, you could claim their plan is too expensive. (State it would raise taxes or divert funds from other important programs, and increase the deficit, unbalance the budget in general). • Next, question all of their explanations • Attacking the funding mechanism of a plan is crucial to raise doubts CHALLENGING THE SOLVENCY STOCK ISSUE • 3. Time Frame: Question how long it will take to see the AT’s proposed benefits. *Specifically ask for a time frame.” If it’s too long, or seems unrealistic, this puts your team in a strong position • 4. Implementation: • Ask WHO will implement the plan? Will it be the US Government, Government Agency, International Group (Ex: UN)? • Will it be self-regulated by individual governments? • This information will help you point out flaws in the AT’s plan CHALLENGING THE SOLVENCY STOCK ISSUE • 5. Enforcement: Follow the same questions as the Implementation step • 6. Inherency: Solvency and inherency are closely connected to create a check list by your team. • Closely examine the AT’s plan to see if the inherent barrier they identified is removed • If the AT’s plan solves the harm scenario by removing the same inherent barrier as the present system addresses, this becomes an obvious argument for your team. CHALLENGING THE SOLVENCY STOCK ISSUE • 7. Fiat: An act of will that creates something without effort. • Associated with debate because teams to not debate whether Congress would or would not pass the AT’s Plan. • It’s assumed it will be passed. • However, the question of fiat remains an important negative position because you can ask if fiat it feasible. • EXAMPLE: We assume congress passes the plan. But, if the plan is implemented or enforced by an international organization such as the UN or by another nation’s government, the legislation passed in Congress WOULD NOT HAVE AN EFFECT. Congress of the United States cannot legally bind another nation to a responsibility without consent. FIATS THINK AND ANSWER IN YOUR NOTE BOOKS, THEN DISCUSS • Why would UN involvement in a plan be a violation of fiat? WHY WOULD UN INVOLVEMENT IN A PLAN BE A VIOLATION OF FIAT? • If a country HAS NOT sanctioned for UN involvement in their country, it would be a violation of fiat (violation of sovereignty). MOVING ON TO OFFENSIVE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS • The stock issues we have examined so far are defensive negative arguments. • To present offensive negative arguments, we will move on to addressing the stock issue of TOPICALITY. • In a debate, you cannot win by only defending a present system.You must also attack, using topicality. • Topicality is the most complex and detailed stock issue • To effectively argue topicality, you must understand the issue and be able to explain each part of the topicality argument • The four parts of a topicality argument are: definition, violation, standards, and voting CHALLENGING TOPICALITY • 1. Definition: When presenting their case, the AT begins offering a resolution and their key terms. They will define the most important terms – You must closely listen to definitions for poorly defined terms. • To challenge a definition, you must provide a counter definition from a reliable source • You must establish superiority of your definition • After challenging a definition, you identify the violation that occurred • 2. Identify the Violation: Here you establish a topicality violation occurred by comparing your definition to the one the AT provided in their plan. CHALLENGING TOPICALITY • 3. Establish the Standards: A standard provides a guide to weigh the violation. There are specific methods to follow in establishing a standard in topicality: • Best Definition: Provide a rationale that explains why your definition is superior • Field Context: Use this standard to define evidence in context (instead of just a glossary) – A field context definition establishes a real-world meaning. Doing so makes your position superior • Education: Argue the narrow definition of the AT violates the educational value of debate – State their resolution is too limited and destroyed the opportunity for a fair debate CHALLENGING TOPICALITY • Bright Line: Argue the AT’s definitions have not offered a clear position – Argue your counter position is more direct. (AT’s definitions do not draw a clear line that defines which cases are topical) • Ground: The AT has provided a definition that has too many limits, preventing your from arguing against the affirmative case and plan (Equal ground has been destroyed) • Grammar:Argue the AT has provided definitions that are grammatically incorrect • Limits: Argue the AT has provided definitions that have expanded the resolution beyond a reasonable limit – This causes you to defend issues beyond a reasonable limit as well (limits are too broad – Discussions need to have limits to be successful) • Specific Meaning: Argue the AT combined the terms of the resolution believing it is fair to consider the whole resolution without breaking it down into individual terms (All individual terms must be discussed and be accurate to make the resolution as a whole accurate) CHALLENGING TOPICALITY • 4. Request the Judge’s Vote: Once you have established the definitions, violation and the standard, the final step in arguing topicality is the voting issue. The voting issue can be framed in one the below ways: • 1. Fairness – Argue you prepared for the debate, BUT the AT’s plan is outside the limits of fairness. • 2. Farmers’ Intent – Argues the authors of the resolution did not intent the debate to extend this far outside the topic. • 3. Tradition – Argues the AT’s case and plan are outside traditional limits of debate. • 4. Jurisdiction – Argues the judge is limited to voting for topical cases only – Ask the judge to exclude the AT’s plan because it is not topical USE THE DISADVANTAGES ARGUMENT • The second offensive argument you can offer • A disadvantage is the argument that, if the AT’s plan is ratified, bad side effects will occur • Once a resolution is released, many teams will research and create disadvantages • AT’s will typically argue that your disadvantage arguments are too generic, and NOT unique to the situation • You team should be prepared to answer the claims of the AT • Each disadvantage must include a: uniqueness, link, and internal link USE THE DISADVANTAGES ARGUMENT USE THE DISADVANTAGES ARGUMENT EXAMPLE • Structure of a Disadvantage • There are three main parts to a disadvantage: 1. Uniqueness -- This is evidence claims that an aspect in the status quo is good now. 2. Link -- This is evidence telling why the plan specifically will ruin what is good in the status quo. 3. Impact -- This is evidence that states what the overall outcome will be if the link is true. USE THE DISADVANTAGES ARGUMENT EXAMPLE • For example, pretend the affirmative presents the following plan, "We should give a Netflix account to Victoria." 1. Uniqueness -- Victoria religiously does her homework and gets good grades. 2. Link -- Victoria will sacrifice her homework time to watch Netflix. 3. Impact -- Victoria will neglect all of her homework, fail her classes, not be able to get into college, become homeless from a lack of education and worst of all, disappoint her mom. • For a more debate-specific example, pretend the affirmative's plan costs a substantial amount of money. 1. Uniqueness -- The economy is stable now. 2. Link -- The plan spends too much money, which disrupts the economy. 3. Impact -- A bad economy increases the risk of global war. (And you could also include that global war can cause extinction.) USE THE KRITIK • A kritik is an offensive argument that challenges a certain way of thinking • Questions the philosophy behind the AT’s case, whether than the case itself • Described as a philosophical argument • Some topics lead to philosophical differences – which leads to philosophical arguments and debates (philosophy of war, education, life, etc.) • Thus, the kritick challenges an underlying philosophy can be viewed as an argument while debating • Challenge you to consider different opinions and have an open mind – Focuses on larger issues TYPES OF KRITIKS • 1. Language Kritiks - Explains the language used in the affirmative case is harmful • Includes language that is sexist, racist, ambiguous, or inflammatory – creates an environment where the affirmative plan cannot be successful • 2. Knowledge Kritiks – Based on the premise that w lack the knowledge to solve the resolution • Explains more information, education, or research abilitiy is needed to solve the resolution STRUCTURE THE KRITIK • Kritiks are structured beginning with an observation, followed by impacts, and finally a decision rule • Observation: Establish an observation, or your major argument • Impacts: This information will create the framework of the debate, and should illustrate the repressions of the kritik for the judges • Decision Rule: Argument that establishes an all or nothing decision – You will request the judge to accept the kritik in contrast to the AT’s plan. This is called priori position (considered first before any other position) • ** Before you try to use a kritik, remember you cannot make any additional arguments ** KRITIK TAKEAWAYS • A negative team tactic used to greatly undermine the AT’s position • Kritiks are used to point out a major flaw or assumption in an argument ASSIGNMENT • In the textbook, read “Turning Point: Scopes Trial -1925” on page 168. • Answer the below questions (more individual research may be needed): • 1. Today, people still debate creationism vs evolution. What was the final effect of the Snopes Trial? • 2. What is the Butler Act? • 3. Summarize the Defense Plan in the trial. • 4. Do you agree with the decision of the trial? Explain. • 5. Why is the Scopes trial still relevant today?
