In the author's view, this debate follows the policy debate system of Oregon, and the conditions for victory or defeat are quite different from the well-known criteria of a "debate competition." Under the rules, the affirmative side, as the ruling party, convenes a parliament to implement a certain policy. The negative side, on the other hand, acts like an opposition party, aiming to criticize the proposed topic by the ruling party in order to obstruct its implementation while upholding the existing order. In this scenario, each success of the ruling party may seem insignificant, but one misstep could lead to a change in power, resulting in defeat. However, for the opposition party, there may be occasional oversights, and a single successful counterattack could lead to historical fame.
In such a system, the affirmative side must delve deeply into four main aspects to construct an unshakable position: necessity, fundamental nature, effectiveness of the solution, and cost-benefit analysis. Only when these four pillars are solid and flawless can the affirmative side rightfully claim victory. On the contrary, the negative side only needs to point out a flaw in any of the above points to stand out and secure victory. In this case, the negative side may not necessarily need to directly deny the topic and may use the "effectiveness of the solution" as a breakthrough to refute the affirmative side's position. As the negative side states, "For rapists, we should indeed take measures of castration, but we should choose a (more effective) physical castration method," this strategy is completely logical and valid.
This article is synchronized updated by Mix Space to xLog. The original link is https://nishikori.tech/posts/essay/2023-11-03