dipetik dengan kebenaran dari Blog "The Naked Truth"]

Written By: Muhammad Yunus  - www.muhammadyunus.wordpress.com

Note: A significant amount of the article attached is from “The Essence of Negative Debating”, written by J. C. McCroskey which I have been using as a coaching instrument for negative or opposing teams in competitive debating – And now would like to share.

Since the first step in developing a negative attack is adapting, to the affirmative, it is important to understand the crucial points of the affirmative position. These are generally accepted to be:

1. Is there a problem in existence which is serious enough to require action to alleviate it?

2. Is this problem or the cause of this problem an inherent part of the status quo?

3. Would the action suggested by the resolution as interpreted by the affirmative eliminate the problem?

4. Is it reasonable to assume that the resolution as interpreted by the affirmative could be implemented if it is found to be desirable?

5. Would the affirmative proposal be free from serious detrimental side effects if it were put into effect?

6. Is the resolution as interpreted by the affirmative the best way to eliminate the problem?

To the above questions the affirmative is expected by most judges and audiences to answer, “yes!” Some judges do not agree that the affirmative must uphold all of these points. The problems for the negative which arise because of this discrepancy will be considered later. Since the affirmative is expected to affirm each of the above questions, it is assumed by some that the negative is expected to oppose each one. This is definitely not the case. The negative must choose at least one crucial point at which to say “no” to the affirmative position, but to contest each point in competitive debate would be undesirable in terms of the time available.

The problem of the negative is twofold: 1) they must thoroughly understand the variety of approaches open to them; and 2) they must ‘be prepared to use whatever approach would be most effective against the particular affirmative they face.