I love argumentation; I have created a basic argument strategy for opposing policy proposals.
This post is essentially a “knowledge deposit” for myself and others who may want to bookmark this post for future interest.
Famous debate: Ford-Carter '76 Election
The structure
Simply put, it goes like this:
1. We don’t think there is a problem
2. We don’t agree the problem is caused by what you say it i caused by
–› But even if there was a problem and it was caused by what you say
3. We don’t agree with the way you go about solving it
4. We don’t agree with the world that you would be seeking to create by:
- a. intervening at all in the problem
- b. acting in such a way to solve the problem
Courtesy: Jason Love
An example
For instance, a policy debate on a smoking ban. The proposition says that there should be a smoking ban in public places because it will effectively prevent negative health consequences for those around the smoker.
1. We don’t think that there are any health problems related to the behaviour of smoking in public places [your evidence is weak, we see no negative effects]
2. We don’t agree that these health consequences you speak of are linked with passive smoking [they are probably caused by other factors]
-> But even if we agreed that there were health problems related to smoking in public places and the causal link is as you say it is
3. We don’t agree with your banning smoking in public places, for it wouldn’t properly prevent the negative consequences [clearly these negative health consequences, this so-called 'passive smoking' doesn't really exist]
4. We also disagree with the society you would be creating by:
- a. intervening in this problem at all [by your nanny-state legislating]
- b. by acting in such a way to solve the problem [by restricting the liberties of the individuals involved in banning them from smoking]
Usage
You understand that you won’t normally adopt points 1, 2, 3, 4 in a proper debate - though you could, only your argument would be full of “even if”s. For instance, in reality, I would probably adopt:
3. Your ban won’t properly prevent the negative consequences
4a. this is just nanny-state legislation
4b. this would be simply over-involvement on the part of the government, this restricting of civil freedoms
If you would like a further example let me know by responding in a comment! 
