Negation theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
Negation Theory is a theory of how a policy debate round should be decided which dictates that the negative need only negate the affirmative instead of having to negate the resolution.
[edit] Overview
Negation Theory says that the Negative has the right to negate the Affirmative in whatever way they see fit. Thus, if the Negative can prove in multiple ways, no matter how contradictory they are, that the affirmative plan is a bad idea, then, the judge should vote negative. The only exception is if the affirmative can explicitly grant two arguments made by the negative that directly "double turn," explained below.
For example, if the Affirmative's plan says that the United States Federal Government should stop disallowing immigrants entry into the country because they have HIV, Negation Theory says that the Negative can say both of these things (also examples):
- Increased immigration risks increased terrorism
- The Aff has a double standard by only allowing HIV-positive immigrants in, and should also allow TB-positive immigrants in
Even though these two arguments completely disagree with each other (Letting TB-positive immigrants into the country would increase immigration, thus increasing terrorism, according to the arguments), the Negative can present them both, because, under this theory, it isn't the Negative's job to present a single argument so as not to contradict themselves, but rather to explain how the Affirmative's plan is not the best choice. The affirmative can't grant both of these arguments, because, even though their underlying philosophies are contradictory, they both taken in their totality prove that the affirmative is bad.
However, if the negative says the following two things:
- The plan would lead to draconian immigration restrictions due to fear of crime
- Increased immigration risks increased terrorism
The affirmative can GRANT both arguments to claim that the plan is still a good idea because it leads to future restrictions on immigration which decrease terrorism. The difference is that, while both of these arguments by themselves would be arguments against the affirmative, taken together they become an argument for the affirmative. This common mistake is known as a "double turn."
Some judges are opposed to "negation theory." As with most theoretical issues in debate, teams tend to argue for negation theory when it is to their advantage (i.e. when they are negative) and to argue against it when it is not.
