1. Hays Watson Head Debate Coach UGA

2.  It is the counterpoint to the Affirmative – instead of Affirming a particular course of action (i.e. the resolution), the Negative…Negates the course of action presented by the Affirmative  Negatives can Negate through a variety of mechanisms - which will be discussed later  The Negative requires LOTS of attention – unlike the Aff, which you KNOW you’ll be defending 3-4 times a weekend, the Negative is faced with uncertainty - you can’t Negate the same way every round!

3.  Presumption  Burden of Rejoinder  “offense”  1nc, 2nc, 1nr, 2nr  “the block”  S-H-I-T-S

4.  Refute the Affirmative – answer the stock issues/Aff burdens (inherency, topicality, etc.); without meeting its burdens, the Affirmative fails to demonstrate that change is necessary; for example, if the Negative team wins that the Affirmative harms are untrue/do not exist, then the Affirmative LACKS a justification for voting for it…why does solvency matter if there’s nothing to solve for?  Topicality is AN aspect of this – winning Aff not T = Neg win (a vast majority of the time)

5.  Defend the status quo – i.e. prove why the Affirmative produces more disadvantages than advantages (Disads); this is an effective strategy at times but is often difficult to execute…why? Because the Affirmative spent 8 minutes of the 1ac indicting the status quo and presenting advantages in favor of the Aff…so “defending the status quo” means refuting the 1ac’s indictment (to a certain degree) while winning that the Affirmative results in consequences that OUTWEIGH the benefit the Aff claims to solve for

6.  Win a counterplan – Negative teams can also defeat Affirmatives by proving that a better policy option (one that is more advantageous/less disadvantageous) than the Affirmative  Winnable counterplans generally a) solve for most if not all of the Affirmatives harms b) compete with the affirmative c) avoid theoretical problems (i.e. aren’t abusive)  Counterplans (and theory/competition questions) can be very complex – if you’re uncomfortable reading counterplans…don’t. Stick with other ways of negating (attack Aff, defend status quo)

7.  Raise philosophical objections against the Affirmative – also known as the critique/kritik/”the K”, this strategy calls for the rejection of the Affirmative due to their use of flawed assumptions of the world  Range from philosophical (capitalism is bad), representational (Aff’s images of environmental destruction are bad), ontological (Aff’s notion of our place in the world are bad), etc.  Even more complex (at times) than counterplans – again, if uncomfortable, stick with other Negation options (counterplans, etc.)

8.  Effective negation starts with having a variety of options to choose from – Negative teams have more success when they BEGIN the debate by refuting the Affirmative (making case arguments), defending the status quo (reading disadvantages to the Aff), proposing a counterplan (that is superior to the Aff in some way) and/or raising philosophical objections to the Aff  Having a variety of options forces the Affirmative to defend itself from a variety of angles – increases the likelihood that they will a) fail to do so or b) will weakly defend a portion (solvency, etc.)

9.  Smart Negative teams will reduce their potential options in the 2nc/1nr (Neg block)  Eliminating options allows for the effective development of the remaining positions – argument development is ESSENTIAL for the Negative because it is difficult to refute the Affirmative case/prove a disadvantage, etc.  Having too many options in the middle of the debate risks shallow development; having too few options (1 disadvantage, only case arguments) makes life too easy for the Aff  The goal of the Negative block is MAXIMUM destruction – you want to make it impossible for the Affirmative to win

10.  Divide up arguments between the 2nc and the 1nr – the consecutive Neg speeches in debates are known as the Neg block (a 13 minute block of time following the 2ac and preceding the 1ar)  Dividing up arguments ensures that you efficiently use the 13 minutes to attack the Affirmative; repeating arguments between the 2nc and 1nr is inefficient and makes the 1ar easy  Example – 2nc takes the disadvantage and arguments against Aff case, 1nr takes counterplan  More arguments = more destruction = the goal of the Negative

11.  Effective Negative teams win debates in the 2nr – it’s the last negative speech  The 2nr is arguably the hardest speech in debate – why? Because you have to BOTH refute the Affirmative AND prove why your positions are true (why the status quo is preferable, why the counterplan is a better policy than the Aff, etc.)…in 5 minutes  Choice is KEY – you have to a) identify the arguments that best ensure your victory and b) invest enough time to walk that path to victory

12.  Must have offense – offense wins debates (even if defense wins championships)  Offense includes disadvantages (plan bad), topicality (not topical is bad), kritiks (aff assumptions bad), case turns (plan bad/harms good)  ONLY offense in the 2nr can be dangerous – it’s generally smart to have some offense (i.e. a disadvantage) with some “defense” (Aff harms aren’t true, Aff doesn’t solve enough, etc.)

13.  If going for topicality in the 2nr, ONLY go for topicality – it usually takes 5 minutes to fully explain your T argument, answer the Affirmatives argument, and explain why the Aff team should lose; it’s VERY difficult to go for T and other options (disadvantage, counterplan) and successfully win debates  If going for a counterplan, you LIKELY will also need to have a net-benefit (a disadvantage to the Affirmative the counterplan avoids); proving that another option exists isn’t enough to win on the Negative – you have to prove that option is BETTER than the Affirmative

14.  If going for a disadvantage, you LIKELY will also need to refute parts of the Affirmative case – while you can win that the disadvantages resulting from the Affirmative are greater than the possible advantages, it’s EASIER to win that the disadvantages are greater WHEN you raise doubts about the affirmatives advantages (i.e. whether there are any advantages or whether the Affirmative solves them)  When doing for a kritik, you will LIKELY need to discuss it for all 5 minutes – it’s complex, requires lots of explanation, some judges don’t like them/find them confusing, etc.

15.  Consult your partner – 2n’s often times suffer through tunnel vision, i.e. they think that the arguments they have made/explained are “better”…when often times that isn’t the case. Policy debate is a team activity – rely upon your partner for advice regarding CHOICE  Predict the 2ar – smart/effective 2nrs predict what the likely content/focus of the 2ar speech will be – doing so allows you to better focus your speech and increase the chance you make the right choice

16.  Practice, practice, practice – knowing what arguments to run on the Negative, what arguments to extend/jettison in the middle of debates, and what arguments to select for the 2nr doesn’t come naturally. It usually comes from trial and error – practice, simply put. Giving more practice speeches, having more practice debates, doing more speech redos, and attending more tournaments ensures you get the necessary practice to become a more effective Negative debater!