The negative advocate in a debate has a little more flexibility than the affirmative. Basically, the negative can argue that the resolution is, in general, untrue or that the affirmative arguments do not warrant the adoption of the resolution. The main negative disadvantage is that you may not know exactly what the affirmative will argue and as aI result you must be more adaptable or risk sounding like you are ignoring the arguments made by the affirmative. Your arguments must be relevant to the resolution at a minimal level, but to achieve maximum effectiveness, your arguments must clash directly with the affirmative arguments. This clash can occur on all levels of the debate.
Definitions are one of the first areas of potential clash.
If the definitions are too general, biased or prejudicial, or even too specialized, you may indict the affirmative definition and provide a superior definition in its place. The affirmative's reasoning and evidence are subject to critical examination and challenge. Technically, it is enough to argue that the affirmative's reasoning and evidence fails to provide convincing reasons to adopt the resolution. However, it is far more persuasive to add to that indictment your own reasoning and evidence that supports the truth of your position. The reasoning of the affirmative may be flawed on the grounds of relevance to the topic or a lack of significance.