Extending Negative Case Arguments
A big part of most negative blocks is the extension of case arguments. These arguments are those that
the negative presents to dispute the affirmative case; they are also called “on-case” to differentiate
them from “off-case” arguments like disadvantages.
How To Reference Case Arguments
When debating case arguments, the reference point to use to “signpost” in later speeches is the 1NC.
Signposting is the process of communicating to the judge which argument is being debated. Debaters
signpost broadly by indicating which position/flow they are addressing (“First, the Economic Growth
Advantage…”, “Next, the Invasive Species DA…”, etc.) and specifically by indicating which argument on a
particular position/flow they are addressing (“Extend 1NC #1, multiple barriers to offshore wind
development…”, etc.).
When debating case arguments, the reference point for individual arguments on a particular flow is the
1NC.
How To Extend Case Arguments
There are three components of an effective extension of a negative case argument:
1. Reference the argument and succinctly explain it.
2. Answer the affirmative’s responses to it.
3. Compare it to the affirmative’s arguments and impact why it matters.
The basic model is:
Extend 1NC number [#] — [brief argument label] — [explanation of the argument] — that’s
[Author from 1NC evidence citation]. They say “[brief reference to the 2AC’s response],” but
[answer]. Prefer our evidence — [argument]. This [impact].
Example of Case Extension
For example, the following is how the negative could extend the first argument against Solvency for the
Offshore Wind Affirmative:
Extend 1NC #1 — there are multiple barriers to offshore wind development. Permits and
licenses are difficult to acquire because of red tape at multiple levels of government. Getting the
okay from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission takes seven years — that’s Craig.
They say “plan overcomes barriers,” but money isn’t the barrier. Even if companies get loans
and make the decision to invest in offshore wind projects, regulatory red tape will block them
from doing so. This is empirically proven by the Cape Wind project.
Prefer our evidence — even if financing is a barrier for some companies, financing alone is not
sufficient to achieve project success. The plan can’t solve without streamlining regulations and
speeding up the approval process.
The best case for the aff is that their plan results in more offshore wind in seven years. This
doesn’t solve any of their short-term impacts but it does link to our disadvantages — (explain).
In this example, the negative began by signposting the argument they were extending (“Extend 1NC #1”)
and briefly referencing it (“there are multiple barriers to offshore wind development”). They then
succinctly explained it and cited the 1NC evidence that supported it (“Permits and licenses are difficult
to acquire because of red tape at multiple levels of government. Getting the okay from the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission takes seven years — that’s Craig”). This is the first step in the process of extending a case
argument.
Next, the negative answered the affirmative’s response. To help ensure that the judge understood what
argument they were answering, they began by saying “They Say” and very briefly summarizing the
affirmative’s response. Be careful not to over-explain the other team’s argument.
After answering their argument, the negative then provided the judge with a reason to prefer their
evidence (“Prefer our evidence — even if financing is a barrier for some companies, financing alone is
not sufficient to achieve project success. The plan can’t solve without streamlining regulations and
speeding up the approval process.”). This is not always necessary but is a good habit to get into.
Finally, the negative impacted their argument by explaining why it matters in the larger context of the
debate. In essence, this is the debater’s chance to answer the question “so what?”. In this case, the
negative argued that if the plan doesn’t overcome regulatory problems then it doesn’t solve for a long
time (“The best case for the aff is that their plan results in more offshore wind in seven years. This
doesn’t solve any of their short-term impacts but it does link to our disadvantages — (explain).”).