Standing up for the SQUO Arguing the Negative Standing up for the SQUO

ROLE OF THE NEGATIVE THE ONLY ROLE OF THE NEGATIVE IS TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE IS A BAD IDEA. The Negative has the burden to clash with the Affirmative. This requirement is sometimes called the burden of rejoinder. This means that the Negative must point out that the Affirmative analysis is weak, faulty, incomplete, or simply contrary to the true facts. The Negative has no obligation to be consistent nor to defend the SQUO. Instead, negation theory allows the negative to attack the affirmative and all of its assumptions. The Negative wants to introduce arguments that diminish the need for a plan, and prove disastrous side-effects that may range far beyond the resolution.

NEGATIVE APPROACHES There are 5 basic approaches to defeating an Affirmative case. They are: Challenging the Affirmative burden of proof. Straight refutation. Defense of the status quo Minor repairs. Disadvantages

Burden of Proof The Affirmative has the duty to present a thoroughly convincing case. If this has not been presented, the Negative need go no further, the Affirmative must lose because of the gaps in its evidence or reasoning. The Negative demands additional evidence under the penalty of an Affirmative loss.  failure to establish a prima facie case.  No justification for plan (i.e. harms/solvency)  direct evidence challenge Biased/unqualified author, outdated info deny the reasoning behind the evidence Affirmative is drawing conclusions their evidence doesn’t support. If author uses words like "might," "sometimes," "perhaps," and "may," the Negative is justified in challenging any conclusion drawn from this quotation.

Straight Refutation  attempts to show that the Affirmative position is not true.  Stronger than BOP approach, which merely contends that the case is not proven.   evidence challenge: not enough proof that the Affirmative position is true. counter-evidence: Affirmative claim is false. must be more recent, or from a more credible source, or it must take into account factors which the Affirmative evidence overlooked. Irrelevance:  the matter being proven has no bearing on the resolution

DEFEDING THE SQUO, OR Minor Repairs  If you defend the SQUO you argue that the present system is already capable of taking care of any problems that arise. the second argues that the present system is nearly perfect, but a little tinkering far short of the Affirmative resolution will make it absolutely perfect. Minor repairs always rely on existing status quo goals and already-existing programs. In advocating the minor repair, the Negative is giving up a little bit of presumption in order to claim that the massive change requested by the Affirmative is not needed.

DISADVANTAGES The disadvantage is designed to outweigh affirmative arguments, but it is not about the affirmative’s indictment of the status quo. It is an entirely new set of arguments, tied to the proposal, that show why it is a bad idea. A good disadvantage argues that everything is going well now, but the affirmative proposal would set in motion events that would lead to a negative outcome. The key to a good disadvantage, therefore, is the ability of the negative team to describe what would happen after the affirmative proposal and tie the negative outcome to a value considered more important than the affirmative.

Title and content layout with chart

Two content layout with table First bullet point here Second bullet point here Third bullet point here Class Group 1 Group 2 Class 1 82 95 Class 2 76 88 Class 3 84 90

Two content layout with SmartArt First bullet point here Second bullet point here Third bullet point here Task Description Step 3 Step 2 Step 1

Add a Slide Title - 1

Add a Slide Title - 2

Add a Slide Title - 3

Add a Slide Title - 4

Add a Slide Title - 5