Value Negative Case Outline/Explanation
The negative has the burden of rebuttal and has to attack the case that the affirmative presents.
The negative know that the affirmative will present definitions and designative issues. The
negative has to refute at least ONE of the affirmative issues, or else carry ONE of the issues the
negative introduces, to WIN.
Resolved:
Observation I: Attack Topicality
a. Topicality refers to the state of conformity to the intent of the debate resolution.
In a value debate, topicality is an attack on the affirmative’s definitions as they
come together to prove an interpretation of the resolution. This is an “a priori”
issue. This is the first item the judge will look at.
b. Negative: If the negative can convince the judges that the affirmative’s case is not
topical, it may win regardless of the strength of the case – the implication being
that the affirmative case does not support the resolution being debated.
c. Affirmative: If the affirmative proves that the case is topical, then they have won
the issue but not the debate.
Observation II: Attack Criteria
a. The negative needs to successfully attack the affirmative criteria. The
negative should offer reasons the criteria initially presented are flawed or
dangerous and also offer a counter-criterion.
b. Negative: By winning the criteria, accepting the counter-criterion as superior
will force the judge to measure the competing values and application by the
negative standards. If the negative can establish the counter-criteria are more
important and show that the affirmative does not meet – then the negative
usually wins.
c. Affirmative: If the affirmative proves that the criterion is superior, then they
have won the issue but not the debate.
Contention 1:
A. Attack Significance
a. Attacking the Significance proves that at least some of the essential elements
of the affirmative’s case are not significant enough to justify adopting the
resolution.
b. Negative: Negative must find ways to minimize the significance of at least
some of the essential elements of the affirmative’s case.
c. Affirmative: If they can establish the significance of its case, it is in a strong
position to counter other negative attacks
B. Attack Uniqueness
a. The negative’s objective in attacking the uniqueness is to prove that at least
some of the essential elements of the affirmative’s case are not unique to the
resolutional terms – Thus do not warrant accepting the resolution.
b. Negative: If the negative can prove that some elements of the affirmative case
are not unique to the case or could be obtained without adopting the
resolution, it has successfully attacked the uniqueness claim of the affirmative.
c. Affirmative: If they can establish the uniqueness of its case, it is in a strong
position to counter other negative attacks
C. Attack Application
a. In attacking the application, the negative tries to prove that the value
advocated by the affirmative will be applied to the problem.
i. The implication of the value is not positive
ii. The application offered is not a legitimate application of the values
being upheld
Off-Case: Provide Value Objections
b. Value Objections are the negative arguments that undesirable consequences
will flow from adoption of the affirmative case.
c. Negative: The negative provides disadvantages to the affirmative’s case - so
that we should reject the affirmative’s case. (Note: Value Objections are only
introduced by the negative)
d. Affirmative: The affirmative must be prepared to demonstrate that the value
objection are not significant and they are outweighed by other issues.
Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D.L. (2000). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for
reasoned decision making (11th ed). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA.
Student Sample
Resolved: charity is more valuable than curiosity
I. Attack topicality:
A. We accept the overall approach to the resolution but we will prove that the
government team’s case does not reflect their interpretation. As a result, they
cannot win because they do not support their own analysis.
B. We accept both the denotative and connotative definitions of charity. However,
we will prove that FEMA is not a charity. As a result, the government team
violates their own definition of charity. Therefore, they cannot win this debate
because their plan does not represent their denotative definitions.
C. We accept the definition of more valuable. However, we will take the approach
that curiosity and charity are equal in value rather than one value having more
worth than the other.
D. We accept the definition of curiosity. However we will prove that placing less
emphasis on searching for new knowledge is detrimental for charity.
II. Attack Criteria:
A. We accept the criteria because it is fair for a value debate. We will use this
criterion to win because we will prove that by limiting knowledge will
actually hurt the victims of natural disasters rather than help them.
III. Attack Significance
A. The PM argued that NASA’s budget is too large and that FEMA’s budget is too
small but they did not prove that FEMA is not getting money because NASA gets
money. There is no correlation between the allocation of funding for the two
independent agencies.
B. The PM argues that people will be helped if FEMA gets more money people will
be helped but they never prove this. The gov’t team admits that FEMA has poor
over site but do nothing to alleviate this problem.
IV. Attack Uniqueness
A. The gov’t team claims that rebuilding will be halted but they do not explain
that this is a direct result of FEMA not receiving a budget increase. This claim
is not unique. Rebuilding could be halted for numerous reasons including
more Hurricanes and the current state of the US economy.
B. The gov’t team explains that no funding has been allocated for past victims
but they also do not have any provisions in their case that guarantee that the
new money, if given to FEMA, will go actually go to these individuals. There
is no prrof that these victims will receive this money.
C. The gov’t team claims that companies will not return to the Gulf Coast and
this is a problem. We claim that this is actually not a problem because if
companies do return, they will only encourage individuals to return to an area
that may once again be devasted by a natural disaster. Hurricans Hanna and
Ike are proof that this could and will happen again.
D. The gov’t claims that violence will rise if FEMA does not get more funding.
This is not an effective argument because FEMA has nothing to do with law
enforcement. Consequently, increased funding will do nothing for crime
control.
V. Attack Application
A. This advantage will never occur because it does not eliminate the factor of
corruption and misuse of funds.
Remember, this is a sample. Don’t forget to complete the other portions of this
assignment.