Arguing the Negative

I am going to do a quick, short post about arguing from the negative. It's not hard, it's not easy, but if you know what you're doing, you'll do just fine. There are 4 things you need to hit upon (unless you're doing a different debating style to the norm, which isn't bad, just unorthodox, and not done by myself), and if you do any of them well enough, then you'll win the debate.

The negative has the burden of rejoinder. This means that the Negative must point out the weakness of the Affirmative's analysis; whether it is faulty, incomplete, or just contrary to true facts. In order to win, the Negative must successfully clash with at least one affirmative argument. If the Negative fails to clash with at least one, it allows the affirmative to go unchallenged, presenting them with a prima facie case, the judge has no option but to vote for the affirmative.

The Negative have a burden of proof on whatever they assert to be true. This means they are in the position of the affirmative to support their reasoning. This isn't the burden of proof, which is the burden to present a prima facie case, but the burden to support their reasoning with expert opinion or equally convincing proof.

Third, the Negative desires to steal the offensive from the Affirmative. This is a principle of debating. The Affirmative gains a great advantage from speaking first in the debate; the First Negative speech is basically defensive. The Negative should adopt tactics to put pressure on the Affirmative analysis, rather than meekly to defend. This is the difference between an offensive and defensive argument, which is basically the difference between winning and losing.

Finally, the Negative desires to open up more issues in the debate. Again, this is a principle of debating. The Affirmative wants to focus debate on the necessary change, or active action. The Negative wants to introduce arguments that diminish the need, obliterate the inherency, and prove disastrous side-effects that may range far beyond the resolution.