For example, if the topic was “that Australia should use nuclear energy” the affirmative team have the right to choose exactly how much nuclear energy, and under what conditions, they are willing to defend (that’s an issue of how ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ line they choose to be) but they can’t ‘define’ the opposition’s case. So they can’t say “we should like to see the government set a target of generating 20% of Australia’s electricity through nuclear power, and the opposition have to defend the status quo – of virtually total fossil fuel use – as a better strategy”. That’s push debating. If the negative team want to defend the status quo then that’s their choice, but if they had a case based on some alternative (like green energy, or reductions in energy use, or a modification to the status quo through a carbon tax… etc, etc) then its their right to set the parameters of their case. All you have to do as a negative team in that situation is to acknowledge the ‘push’, and then reject it. For example, you could say something like: “The affirmative team are eager to see nuclear power used in Australia and we reject that, but contrary to what they think, our alternative is not a dirty fossil fuel energy industry, the alternative that we will be advocating is….” and then insert your model. Every time the affirmative try to say that your team is defending the problems with the status quo, you reply “no, we want to change the system too, just in a different way, and here is why our alternative is better than nuclear energy” and get back to the debate. Sounds simple, but it can take guts when an opposition team is yelling at you! But there are times when an affirmative team is right to stake out the grounds of the debate – but this is only the case when the topic forces the negative team by virtue of the wording of the motion, to specifically defend something. If the topic was “That the Singapore should abolish the death penalty as a punishment for drug traffickers” then the position of the Negative team is obvious – they have to defend the status quo. They could insert minor modifications (better appeals process) but they have to defend the use of the death penalty for drug traffickers in order to engage properly in the debate. What the previous two examples show is that push debating occurs mostly when the wording of the topic is focused on what the Aff should defend, and doesn’t say much about the nature of the negative teams case (such as “that we should invade Iran” – the position of the Aff is made obvious, but the Neg have several options open to them – sanctions, economic engagement, etc).Under these conditions some Aff teams will try and push the Neg, to limit their choices. They might be doing it because they think it’s in the spirit of the motion, or they might be doing it because they are trying to push them in order to gain some tactical advantage. In any event the Neg is always free to reject the push if they want. But on a final note I think its worth pointing out that it’s not necessarily ‘weak’ to accept a ‘pushed’ position. If the Neg want to embrace the case pushed onto them by the Aff, or they are willing to accept the test or criteria established by their opponents, then its not inherently bad to do so – so don’t mark them down, or view them as weak for doing it. The issue then is simply was it tactically smart for them to do so – and sometimes the answer is yes, just as sometimes a tactical concession can help move a debate forward, or neutralise an argument
Posted on: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:02:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015