Intoduction Burden of Refutation Representativeness Counterwarrants Value Objections Value Implications Negative Position Organization Sample Negative Case
A stock issue approach to value debate has never gained much notoriety. This is unfortunate because there are clear stock issues involved in debating values and beginning debaters would benefit from having clear, concise issues to address in each round. The stock issues presented in this handbook provide a framework for the negative to evaluate an affirmative case, locate flaws in argument and logic, and then deliver a convincing negative clash.
Burden of Refutation
While the affirmative has the burden to establish a prima facie case, the negative has the burden of refutationor clash. The negative must do more than simply negate the proposition and then deliver a case supporting a counter-value. The negative has a two fold responsibility:
- Direct Refutation of the Affirmative Case.
- Representativeness.
- Counterwarrants.
- Value Objections.
- Value Implications.
- Establishing the Negative Position.
- Establish a Negative Value.
- Establish a Negative Criteria.
- Apply Criteria to the Negative Position.
- Establish the Superiority of Negative Value.
The negative must also do more than simply read evidence that contradicts the evidence read by the affirmative - this is called "going one-on-one" with an opponent. As a judge, I have left countless rounds where debaters simply threw evidence at each other - neither could gain an upper-hand and I felt compelled to vote against both. A clear, step-by-step analysis of an opponent's weaknesses will give the judge a clear choice.
**Few affirmatives will demonstrate weaknesses in all areas; therefore, the examples presented in this handbook are derived from a variety of cases. Whenever reasonable, the affirmative from this handbook will be used in the analysis.
Representativeness
Do the components of the affirmative case represent, portray, or typify the proposition? (Please remember the tests Argument Tests from page 22)
- Definitions: Are the definitions an
accurate description of the key terms? Do they faithfully represent how the words are used
in the proposition sentence? Are they applied accurately within the case?
- Improper Contextual Emphasis on the term "Importance." Affirmative defines more important as "of greater value in content, weight, or significance." The term value tends to isolate the debate to the final results ignoring the significant role that moral implications play in regulating genetic research.
- A more appropriate definition is found in "marked by or possessing greater weight or consequences." My question is, "Has the affirmative demonstrated that society should side with scientific progress whenever science and morality come into conflict?" I assert that they may have demonstrated that science is important; but, they have not demonstrated that questions of science should over-rule or veto questions of morality.
- Value: Is the value an accurate
reflection of the Subject of Evaluation? Have they adequately defined the value? Is the
value the central theme of the case?
- **Genetic Manipulation Is Not Representative of the Value of Life. Affirmative utilizes the value of Life to represent the essence of genetic manipulation of nature; thus, encountering the fallacy of Hasty Generalization - "Genetic manipulation supports life, and without genetic manipulation, life cannot be substantially maintained." Life, indeed, is an important value; however, genetic manipulation is not an essential necessity for sustaining life.
- If debate value of life is accepted, then we must also accept that emphasis on moral implications better supports life. Relatively few individuals benefit from the life sustaining actions of genetic therapy, but virtually all of us have been saved from another individual's anger that was prevented from turning into mortal peril by the moral implications of murder.
- Criteria: Does the selected
criterion support the value? Is it defined sufficiently? Is the criterion used to measure
the importance of the value?
- **Utilitarianism Is An Inappropriate Standard For The Value Of Life. Ultimate perfection of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, would actually promote extinguishing life for those whom the affirmative seeks to protect - the ill, infirmed, and handicapped.
- If utility is allowed to veto moral implications, then society would benefit by the elimination of the aged, infirmed, and handicapped who consume more resources than they produce. Society would benefit from a communist style government that weighs the utility of rights, freedoms, and resources and distributes them according to how they best benefit society.
- Representation: Is each component
represented correctly within the case? Is there anything left out? Do they emphasize the
key components acceptably?
- The Affirmative Fails To Portray Genetic Manipulation Of Nature Over Its Entire Spectrum. Yes, genetic research advances medicines, agriculture, and environmental concerns. But they fail to mention the more controversial aspects of genetic research.
- Dr. Donald Kennedy asserts, "But second, each opportunity affords an array of potential problems: unwanted side effects, unanticipated social costs, unforeseen public health and environmental risks. These are compounded by a very special kind of drama - the specter of genetic monsters running amuck and that we have begun to interfere with a process so fundamental in nature that we may be guilty of the sin of hubris." ("Winding Your Way through DNA" symposium, which took place at the University of California San Francisco in 1992.)
Representativeness Exercise: Gather a variety of sample affirmative cases including the cases you and your peers have been developing. Develop at least one solid representativeness attack for each of the categories listed above.
Counterwarrants
A counterwarrant is a declaration that an argument, evidence, or statement is false, misleading, misrepresented, or improperly emphasized. (Showing that the affirmative's statements are false.)
- Subject of Evaluation: Does the
affirmative portray the Subject of Evaluation accurately? Have they left out any important
facts? Is their information accurate?
- Acceptance of the Resolution Implies Science First - Moral Concerns Second. An example can be found in Dr. Henry Miller's, former head of the Biotechnology Policy Office at the Food and Drug Administration, belief that: 1) the elimination of the biotechnology offices at the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health, because biotechnology is just a set of tools; 2) take the NIH out of the business of evaluation of gene-therapy protocols; and 3) eliminate the USDA's Agricultural Advisory Committee and its Office of Agriculture Biotechnology. ("To Regulate Or Not To Regulate: Forum: To Rationalize U.S. Biotech Regs," "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1994.)
- Regulatory Mechanisms Maintain an Equilibrium Between Need & Implications. People of good will can argue all day about the merits of the existing Coordinated Framework as an effective regulatory mechanism for biotechnology products, and most will admit to its shortcomings. However, the mechanism is working, and this administration hasn't yet displayed an inclination to abandon it. ("To Regulate Or Not To Regulate: Forum: To Rationalize U.S. Biotech Regs," "NBIAP News Report." U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1994.)
- Terms of Evaluation: Does the
affirmative link the value and criteria adequately? Is the emphasis precise? Do they
fulfill the criteria?
- Affirmative Improperly De-emphasizes the Term "More." Webster's Third International Dictionary defines the adverb form of the term as "to a greater extent or degree, used as a measure of desperation to achieve victory; often used with adjectives and adverbs as a comparison." Affirmative must not only demonstrate that genetic manipulation is important but that it has greater importance than moral implications. Affirmative fails to meet this requirement.
- Arguments: Are their arguments
based on the truth? Are they representative? Are they of a sufficient sampling? Are the
conclusions drawn from the evidence?
- **Affirmative Lacks a Connection Between Their Value and the Subject of Evaluation. Affirmative argues that genetic manipulation of nature is an intrinsic part of Life; however, they fail to demonstrate how the two are linked. Yes, life is important, yes advances in genetic research improves a small aspect of our material well-being. My question is, "How is genetic manipulation intimately entwined with the value of life?" I challenge the affirmative to demonstrate this connection.
- **Affirmative Lacks a Clear Connection Between Their Value of Life and the Criteria of Utility. Affirmative argues that utility demonstrates the superiority of the value of life but fails to illustrate how that criterion is measures how genetic manipulation sustains life. There does not seem to be a link between the criteria and the value. In the absence of genetic manipulation how is life threatened in the every-day world? How is the greatest number affected by genetic manipulation? How do the moral implications impede genetic manipulation? The affirmative case is not prima facie, it lacks clarity and cohesion. I challenge the affirmative to resolve these questions.
- Evidence: Is the source of the
information cited? Is it accurate? Is it reported by a reliable source?
- Affirmative's Evidence Is Biased. Please note that That Genetech and the Biotechnology Organization are cited four times and both have a vested financial interest in promoting the positive benefits of genetic research. I challenge the affirmative to confirm their information with unbiased sources.
- Affirmative Uses Selective Reporting. In the evidence provided by Dr. Donald Kennedy, they take the evidence out of context and suppress evidence that is unfavorable to their position. They cite the advantages but conveniently leave out part two - the concerns and disadvantages. All information directly related to genetic research is unreliable and questionable.