Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Policy Debate - The Negative
Transcript of Policy Debate - The Negative
Are a negative position or argument referred to as an Off Case Position.
Are most commonly presented in the 1NC.
Are structured in an outline format.
Counter plans are also known as CPs or Competitive Policy Options.
They are plans the negative put forth to attempt to solve the harms of the affirmative while avoiding DAs.
CPs are commonly presented in the 1NC. Also know as Critques or K's, these arguments generally attack a fundamental approach used by the affirmative team in their defense of the topic. Often these relate to philosophical concerns. A. Uniqueness – The status quo is in good shape.
B. Link – The affirmative plan has a negative side effect on the status quo.
C. Internal Link – Connects the link to the impact. It provides the “cause and effect” analysis.
D. Impact – The negative effect of the plan leads to a terrible result. Impact Calculus Time Frame - How fast the impact happens?
Magnitude - How big is the impact?
Turns Case - How it makes what the affirmative is trying to solve worse?
At the end of the debate the team that wins the impact calculus debate usually wins the round.
Counter Plan Theory A counter plan must be “competitive” with the affirmative plan.
This can be shown if the two plans are “Mutually Exclusive”
Competition can also be proven via “Net Benefits”
Status of the Counter Plan Conditional - The Counter Plan can be "kicked" or dropped as if it was never presented at the negative team's discretion. Unconditional - The negative must defend the counter plan throughout the round. Common K's Capitalism, Securitization, Racism, Feminism, Heidegger, Nietzsche Ontological vs Deontological vs Epistemological
Framework There is some question as to whether this type of argument is applicable to policy debate. This debate occurs at a framework level. A K is structured like a DA. The three basic parts are:
A. Link - How it ties to the affirmative.
B. Impact / Implication - Why it is bad.
C. Alternative - How to solve the problem. This debate should be started in the 2AC "A K is a non-unique DA with an alternative that acts like a CP." Old Debate Coach