2.4 Contentions and Conclusion
Once you have finished the interim, it’s time to move on to the heart of your speech: your contentions. You should state these explicitly: “My first contention is . . .” This is so that your audience (and the opposing debaters) know that it’s time to get down to business. As affirmative, you bear the burden of proof on the resolution, which means that you must demonstrate that a preponderance of evidence supports your side of the resolution. This should not scare you since you have the advantage of preparing your case in advance.
Consider this contention from the affirmative constructive speech: “Legalization will promote economic prosperity.” The full deductive argument would continue: economic prosperity increases overall utility, therefore adopting the resolution would increase utility. There is no need to state the full deductive argument if the premise makes it clear. However, if it isn’t clear, you should add a sentence or two of explanation (or even the full deduction) when you first mention the contention.
After you state each contention, explain the evidence and reasoning that make it true. The first affirmative contention in the cannabis debate is “Most Americans support legalization of cannabis.” This contention is first justified by the results of a poll showing majority support for legalization, but the debater does not stop there, adding that the poll may undercount the utility gains by supporters so the numbers may actually be higher. Furthermore, the affirmative claims that the utility lost by those who oppose legalization is likely to be less than the gains from supporters since opponents will experience less disutility than those denied a pleasure they enjoy. This also preempts the argument that polls fails to account for the intensity of preferences, so majority support does not necessarily indicate an increase in utility.
The second affirmative contention is that legalization will promote economic prosperity. Here, the contention is justified by data on job creation and increased GDP (gross domestic product.) To preempt the argument that this is a short-term gain that will not be repeated, the debater adds a projection about future job growth. Another argument that could have been added is that overall employment increased in states that legalized cannabis (to preempt the argument that the new jobs merely substituted for old ones so the gain in utility might be overstated).
The third affirmative contention is “Legalization will decrease harms caused by alcohol use.” The contention relies on the premise that legalization will reduce overall consumption of alcohol because some people will substitute cannabis for alcohol, so it first shows that there is evidence of such a substitution effect. The full argument might go: “Alcohol use causes harm to society, legalization of cannabis will reduce overall alcohol use and therefore reduce that harm; consequently, adopting the resolution will increase utility.” The debater might have made this more explicit, but the argument is not difficult to ascertain. However, there is no data about how much substitution will takes place, which weakens the point.
In the Refugee Protocol debate, the first affirmative contention is “Gaining control over deportation would increase utility.” The key issues here are showing why the Protocol limits control over deportation, and why having that control is good. The debater does a good job of addressing the first issue, but the reason why that control comes down to achieving a better mix of immigrants. This goal was not explored in the debate, but it might have led to an interesting discussion about what makes immigrants desirable, and what the US should focus on in framing its immigration policy.
The second affirmative contention is “Reducing the costs of taking care of asylum applicants would increase utility.” This is a straightforward economic calculation, but as the negative would show later in the debate, it left out the effect that the newly-admitted immigrants would have on the economy. One of the problems with utility calculations is that most are underinclusive and you can almost always find something important that was left out.
The third affirmative contention is “Reducing applicants would reduce fraud and increase utility.” Here the debater found a good quote from a Department of Justice announcement of an indictment, but did not follow up to find out what happened to the persons who were indicted. Googling their names might have provided closure on what the negative would later identify as an incomplete and unsound argument.
Sometimes contentions are justified by argument rather than by evidence. This is often the case if your value is deontological. A Rawlsian defense of cannabis legalization would require an explanation as to why the principle of equal liberty for all would support ending the prohibition. The positive benefits of permitting people to engage in creative activity while under the influence of cannabis would help explain why legalization promotes liberty. Examples might also help since statistics supporting such an assertion are likely hard to find. There is no need to find evidence to support every contention; sound argument is far more important.
If you do use statistics to support your contention, know the source of your data. It will be helpful if you are asked about how they were compiled or if your opponent introduces contradictory statistics. However, there is no need to pile on statistics; your argument is only as good as your worse statistic since that is what your opponents will pounce on. Good evidence may get slighted when your opponent attacks the one study that is flawed. There is declining marginal utility to additional statistics, and citing too many studies often wastes time you could better devote to additional argumentation. Redundant statistics also strain listeners’ attention.
When debating, you only need to mention the names or organizations that provide the evidence for each contention. When you are writing an affirmative constructive, there is a need for more extensive bibliographic information. This is discussed in the chapter Citing Sources in Debate.
Once you have finished, sum up in a couple of sentences. Both of the affirmative constructives do a good job of this. Then sit down (if there is no cross-examination); it’s time for the negative constructive.
