This is one of the simplest positions you would ever get in most debates. Note, that this does not automatically make it an easy position, it's just simple in terms of fulfilling your role. One thing you'll need to do, is to address the points made by the previous speaker. Make sure that you cripple her support for the extended case. That way, she will not be satisfying her part of the burden of proof. Since the previous speaker will have so many things to do in her round, she'll probably won't load you with many arguments to clash. That aside, the only other thing you could and should do is to formulate an Opp. Philosophy. An approach, around which your opposition to the extended case will evolve. Explain to everyone how you are going to go about doing that, then move on to the implementation phase by actually doing it.

This twofold approach of clashing the previous speaker's arguments, as well as strategically attacking her extended case itself, is all you'll need for the round. Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, as usual, there's a catch to it. It may all be simple in terms of role fulfilment, but you need to do these two things really well. While this may be easy in terms of rebutting the government's arguments, it turns out things can vary when attacking their case construct.

When you're bringing forth your independent points of analysis, you need to be aware of how to make them as effective as possible, in order to maximize your chances to winning this debate. "The more the merrier", is the basic rule of the thumb here. Try to generate a bulk of new points, as it will be very hard for the next speaker to deal with it afterwards. Think of this, if it weren't for you, your team would have no arguments at all. All of your team's arguments are your arguments. Your partner will not have a chance of bringing new positive material, anyway, so lets just say that you're responsible for twice the amount of normal argumentation.

Another thing you should do, is talk with your partner before you get up. He may have something briliant to say, but he will not be allowed to bring new matter into the debate during his speech. If you bring these arguments up, or if you even just mention them without analysing them fully, your partner will be able to better elaborate on the wonderful job that "you did" when you brought up argument so-and-so.

So... what else? Nothing, I guess that's it. I told you it's simple, just focus on your arguments, you'll have enough time to do that anyway. Let the others remember you as the guy with all those arguments!