Constructing a Negative Case

When you debate on the negative side, your job is to prove that the resolution is false. This doesn’t mean you just disagree with the affirmative - it means you provide a structured argument that gives the judge clear reasons to reject the resolution. A strong negative case follows the same basic structure as an affirmative case: a framework, a set of contentions, and a clear strategy for refutation.

Step 1: Establish Your Framework

Just like the affirmative, the negative side needs a core value and a value criterion to define the debate. Your framework should directly challenge the affirmative’s and show why their standard for evaluating the resolution is flawed.

For example, if the resolution is:"The development of Artificial General Intelligence is immoral,"

The affirmative might use:

• Value: Morality

• Criterion: Minimizing harm

A negative framework might challenge this by saying:

• Value: Progress

• Criterion: Maximizing societal benefit

Instead of debating whether AGI is perfectly safe, your case argues that the benefits outweigh the risks. By shifting the debate in your favor, you force the affirmative to argue against progress itself - a much harder position to defend.

Step 2: Present Your Contentions

Your contentions are the reasons the resolution is false. Like the affirmative, you should have two or three strong contentions, each backed by logic and evidence.

For example, in response to “The development of Artificial General Intelligence is immoral,” a negative case might argue:

• AGI will improve human life - AI can revolutionize healthcare, education, and productivity, leading to a higher quality of life.

• AGI is an inevitable part of progress - Once technology is possible, it will develop with or without restrictions, so banning it is unrealistic.

• Moral concerns are speculative - There is no evidence that AGI will cause harm, so restricting it based on hypothetical fears is unjustified.

These contentions directly challenge the premise of the resolution and force the affirmative to prove their side beyond reasonable doubt.

Step 3: Attack the Affirmative Case

Negative debaters have an advantage - they don’t have to prove anything new, just that the affirmative case is weak. Strong negative cases include built-in refutations of common affirmative arguments.

Ask yourself:

• Is the affirmative’s framework flawed? If their value and criterion don’t logically support the resolution, call it out.

• Do their contentions hold up? Find contradictions, exaggerations, or missing evidence in their arguments.

• Is their case realistic? Some affirmative arguments sound good in theory but don’t work in the real world. Point that out.

The best negative cases not only present strong arguments but also take control of the debate by exposing the weaknesses in the affirmative case.

The Bottom Line

Being on the negative side doesn’t mean you’re just playing defense - it means you’re forcing the affirmative to prove their case beyond doubt. A strong framework, well-developed contentions, and aggressive refutation will make it difficult for your opponent to win. If you can disrupt their arguments while reinforcing your own, you’ll control the round.