How can the negative team challenge the significance of the affirmative case?

The option that states "By arguing harms are exaggerated, minor, or irrelevant" accurately describes a strategy the negative team can use to challenge the significance of the affirmative case. In public debate, the affirmative side typically presents a case that outlines specific harms or problems that their plan aims to address. By successfully arguing that these harms are not as serious as claimed—whether by suggesting they are exaggerated or minor—the negative team can undermine the foundational argument of the affirmative case.

This skepticism about the significance of the harms shifts the debate away from whether the plan is beneficial to questioning whether the issues it seeks to resolve are worthy of attention at all. If the negative team can persuade the judges that the problems presented are not pressing or relevant, they effectively diminish the urgency of the affirmative case and strengthen their own position, illustrating that the resolution may not need to be resolved in the way the affirmative proposes.

The effectiveness of this strategy is rooted in a fundamental aspect of debate: the significance of the affirmatives claims must stand up to scrutiny. If the negative team can reveal flaws or exaggerations in the harms presented, they effectively weaken the affirmative's justification for their proposed plan.