Video transcript
CT - Coaching secondary debating - 13. Tips for negative teams

[intro music]

HUGH BARTLEY: Let's switch to negative now. I've got two tips for the negative team, specifically, in debates. The first of those is to have a clear stance on the problem that the debate is allegedly trying to solve. Ask yourself, is there a problem at all here?

I.e., is space funding actually really a good thing to do, and it's worth every cent? And the affirmative team is just making up that it's a waste of money? Or, if it is a problem, is it that much of a big deal? Is it worth taking that risk, even if we don't get a full return on investment because the possible progression to humanity is so great?

If you decide there isn't a problem, you can then have a lot of arguments about why the status quo works well and people are enjoying themselves. But if you decide that there is a problem, which will probably be most debates, then you can ask some further questions. You can go, firstly, is the status quo of organic change the best way of fixing that problem?

So even if some rockets crash, do the space agencies learn from these failed missions? And does that help us perfect our endeavours for next time? Alternatively, would you as the negative team support other methods of fixing that problem?

So maybe you would provide more friendly regulation to private sector organisations and companies like SpaceX, which want to explore space but are not using taxpayer dollars to do so. The thing to remember here is that both teams in a debate have equal economic and political capital. Economic capital is money to spend, and political capital is the ability to persuade people and change institutions in the way that you want.

So on economic capital, the affirmative can't say, oh, well, we're going to solve malaria, and measles, and poverty. And we'll keep funding space because they don't have the money to do that. The affirmative is saying that there's a trade off. And they're choosing poverty reduction allegedly over space.

And the negative can say, well, we've got all the money in the world. So we can do both. In terms of political capital, the affirmative might try to claim in their definition that the space money will automatically just go all towards the poorest people and solve the huge amount of the world's problems.

But the negative can do a few things with that. They can, firstly, say, well. No, you guys have to step through exactly how you do that. Go and see my other video and definitions, if you want to know more details on this. And secondly, the negative can say, well, affirmative, even if you can prove that all of this space money will go to good causes, you don't-- what we can do then is use that same political capital you've used to tax big corporations more, end political corruption.

And that can be for the benefit of poor people and foreign aid. But the important thing is, we, on the negative, would keep exploring space. So that always is what the debate boils down to. Both teams might have some argy bargy about how much money and political capital they have.

But if you're the negative team member, you've got equal as the affirmative. And your stance on the debate needs to be really clear in informing your argument. So is there a problem that needs to be solved? If there is, how does your side propose solving it? And, you know, give reasons in consequence of that.

So have that clear stance. My second point, the second tip for negative teams in debates is, goes like this, harms, harms, harms, harms, harms, and harms, and harms, even more harms. I.e., you need to prove not just that the affirmative model will not be effective at doing something, or will be useless, or won't solve a problem, or there are better ways of doing it.

But you have to show that the affirmative will actively ruin something in the status quo, in some way. I'm going to use a different topic to explain this. Let's say we're debating the topic that debating should be a compulsory school subject. Now, an OK negative team might say things like, oh, the debating classes will be really bad.

They'll be crowded. And the teachers won't know what they're doing. And the kids won't learn much because the teachers will teach them poorly. And the material will be poorly put together. And if they wanted to learn about current affairs, kids could just go watch the news, right?

This is what we call mitigation or reduction of the affirmative team's arguments. It's not really showing why the debating classes would be a bad thing. It's just saying that they just won't do much. And they won't achieve the aims that the affirmative is aiming to achieve.

A much better negative team would get up in that debate. And they'd say a couple of things. They'd say, firstly, if we put in compulsory debating classes, this will turn kids off public speaking for life because they'll hate the structured rules of the activity. They'll hate being forced to do it. And they'll have trauma from their younger years.

And that's a harm that shows that the affirmative is actively doing something worse than the status quo. The negative team might also say, well, kids will become really bad people. And they'll be argumentative with their friends and parents. And they won't know how to compromise or change their mind, when presented with logical arguments that disagree with their opinion.

And that is also a harm that is an active ruining of the status quo that the affirmative has done. You might also say other harms like the debating classes will take away from English and Maths and those crucial school subjects, right? So the key point here is that, if you're the negative team, you've got to prove harms.

You cannot win a debate without proving harms. But that doesn't mean that mitigation isn't still sometimes useful. It is still useful just mostly in rebuttal because, at the end of the debate, the adjudicator has to weigh up between the benefits that the affirmative team shows and the harms that the negative team shows, right?

And, if you're the negative team, you want the harms to be greater. Now, obviously, it helps if you go to harms, harms, harms, harms, and blow them up, and explain them as best as you can. But it also helps if you can reduce the affirmative team's benefits. So mitigate them.

Tell me why they're just not going to happen in the way that the affirmative says they do. Sorry, that's the second tip for negative teams, harms, harms, harms. Don't forget that first tip, as well, which is have a clear stance on the problem the debate is trying to solve.

Cool, so thanks for listening, guys. Those are my tips for both the affirmative and the negative team. Remember that both of the things, those things are unique to the teams. But, in general, debating tips you receive can be used, no matter what speaker you are to improve your argument, improve your rebuttal.

If you want to hear more of those tips, go watch our other videos. But Thanks for watching this one. And I hope to see all of you guys in great debates as both the affirmative and the negative team. Cheers.