Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
logic

Hypo Testing & Negation Theory

Recommended Posts

Negation theory basically means the neg team can run multiple advocacies, like of the status quo and a counterplan. Hypothesis testing is a paradigm where the judge votes aff or neg based on whether the resolution is proven good or not, as opposed to the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothesis Testing is an old-school judging paradigm wherein the case is a hypothesis to be tested to determine desirability of the resolution by way of scientific principles. Negation theory is the principle that the negative has the ability to challenge multiple, often contradictory aspects of the case and the resolution in order to disprove the plan's desirability. So, Negation theory is the negative approach you'd take before a hypothesis testing judge, though your chances of seeing a hypo testing judge on most circuits is about the same as the likelihood of finding a bag of gold at the end of a rainbow.

 

Negation theory gets discussed in some theory debates, particularly when performative contradiction violations are cited. In simplest terms, negation theory says the neg gets leeway and may contradict itself in disproving the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypo testing is what your grandpa and people in Montana do. Its not actually useful or important anymore. Other than omitting that, the last two posters were right.

 

Negation theory, on the other hand, is what the neg says when theyre lazy and can't think of offensive reasons as to why they should be allowed to do whatever they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the definitions given by Jon and Brett of Hypo-Testing (treating the resolution as a hypothesis to be tested from all angles), however I would add that "negation theory" can also mean the theory behind WHY the neg should or should not be allowed to run multiple contradictory positions. Basically this usually comes down to something like "The aff represents one senator presenting a plan to congress whereas the neg represents the other 99 senators who might have 99 different, and potentially contradictory, reasons to not do that plan." or, on the other side, acknowledging that the neg is in fact just one team and it could be viewed as intellectually dishonest to run contradictory positions (especially things like a kritik at the same time as a counteplan which links to that kritik--this is often referred to as a "performative contradiction" which is a debate term for "hypocrisy").

 

Edited `cause I englished bad.

Edited by Teddy Ruxpin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Racehorse" Haynes, a Texas criminal defense attorney, gave the classic example of negation theory:

 

"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you.

 

Well now this is my defense:

 

My dog doesn't bite.

And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night.

And third, I don't believe you really got bit.

And fourth, I don't have a dog."

 

Yes they contradict, but if the defense wins any one of their four claims, they win the case.

 

And hearing hypo-testing described as "old school" does indeed bring a smile here; I had already debated 4 years of HS, 4 years of college, coached 2 years of college and a couple years of HS before we started encountering hypo-testing with any significant frequency.

Edited by DeCoach
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...