Building Opposition Cases In Parliamentary Debate

Arranging the Opposition Case The purpose of the introduction for the Opposition is to make their initial position clear and to set up the arguments to be offered by the team. YOU MUST BUILD YOUR OWN CASE NOT JUST REFUTE! There are 3 main aspects: introduction, body, conclusion Introduction: An appropriate greeting, restatement of the proposition, and comment or reaction, or response to the definition of terms. The statement of the Opposition philosophy, or general view on the proposition. This statement should relate the negative position to the values, attitudes, or policies of the status quo and provide them with the greatest basis of persuasive appeal. The preliminary outline or preview of the division of labor which the Opposition will employ—which speaker will concentrate specific issues, initial summary of the main negative claims of the Opposition argument.

Body: This section provides the main development of the Opposition issues and may be divided into 2 subsections. The first subsection may consist of supporting the status quo through Opposition claims, while the second subsection may deal with straight refutation of selected parts of the Government’s case. Conclusion: This should summarize the Opposition’s position on the definition, the Opposition philosophy, the Opposition arguments, and the Opposition position on Government’s claims or arguments. If this material is communicated in a succinct, well-organized manner, it may create an impression of a large barrier for the Government to overcome and thus, will be very persuasive to the audience.

Burdens of the Opposition Defend the status quo. OR repair the present system/provide your own case (with evidence). Direct point by point refutation of the Government case. If desirable, offer alternative solution. The burden of rejoinder: your job is to CLASH and refute directly to Government claims, evidence, and reasoning. You enjoy presumption or figurative ground at the start of the debate. In other words, the status quo is sufficient unless the Government team provides otherwise. You’re defending, but also offering an offensive position. Both teams have the burden of rejoinder: each side responds to the other or lose the arguments they are silent on.

Four Strategies For Opposing Resolutions of Policy Defense of the status quo. Repair of the present system (mend it, don’t end it). Direct refutation of the Government case. Offer an alternative solution or plan.

Defense of the Status Quo This is a defense of the current system, policy, or law. Example: “This House would eliminate illegal immigration.” In opposing the Government team’s case, you would seek to illustrate the strengths and advantages of the present system and how illegal immigrants are not harming the country. It isn’t necessary to argue that the present system is perfect, only that in light of the present circumstances and in comparison to the Government team’s proposal, it is the superior course of action. One advantage of supporting the status quo is that you have the advantage of presumption on your side. Remember, presumption is the inherent advantage in opposing change. Thus, the Government/advocate needs to show a compelling reason to change. You, the Opposition, don’t have to. You uphold the status quo with strong arguments in addition to showing the disadvantages and problems with the Government team’s case.

Repair the Present System Don’t completely abolish the present system as that it too harsh, complicated, unnecessary, etc. This stance requires a continued commitment to the underlying tenets of the present policy, but recognizes the desirability of minor changes for improvement. Rather than tearing down the house and building a new one, this approach involves changes in the existing structure. Be sure to avoid going too far in criticizing the present system lest you end up supporting the Government team’s arguments. So, you would advocate minor repairs and make clear your continued support of the fundamental principles of present policies and your dissimilarity to the Government’s approach.

Straight Refutation This approach is most appropriate in response to a poorly conceived Government team policy. With this method, commitment to support the status quo is unnecessary. You may refer to the current system in your argument, but the main focus remains countering the Government teams’ plan. A major advantage of this strategy is that you don’t need to burden yourself with the responsibility of defending current practices or any particular policy. You just attack the logic of the underlying Government team’s position.

Alternative Solution This is a competing policy proposal. The Opposition admits that a serious problem exists in the status quo, but counters the Government team’s advocacy with its own plan to address the problems identified by both teams. The Opposition doesn’t attempt to defend the status quo, but offers a plan of action that is distinct from the proposal or resolution advocated by the Government team. Your plan must compete directly with the Government team’s plan and be argued as mutually exclusive as well. In other words, it would be either impractical or impossible for both plans to be implemented at the same time. Example: This House would operate on the health care system.” The Government team advocates for a government run, single-layer system. The Opposition wants privatization of health care to continue. Health care cannot be private and government run at the same time.

Remember the Structure of Refutation: Reference Identify clearly and concisely the argument you are attacking. Response State your position succinctly. Support Introduce evidence and argument to support your position. Explanation Summarize your evidence and argument. Impact Demonstrate the impact of your refutation in weakening your opponent’s case or in strengthening your own case.