2.1 Building the Affirmative Constructive
Preparing for a debate begins with planning how to approach the topic. One option is to first determine whether you think the resolution should be adopted, and then figure out the best value to would justify its adoption. Another option is to choose the value you believe should apply to the topic, and then decide what position best fits that value. There is no reason why one approach is always better. However, keep in mind that classroom debate is about doing well in your debates, not about changing the world. That may mean arguing against something you believe in. And you may have to do that anyway if your class assigns sides, or requires you to argue both sides of the resolution.
The next step is to determine your value for the proposition. The unit on values explores several that are useful in LD debate, so you should review them before deciding on a value. In many cases, utility is a good choice since it is the easiest to explain and apply. But utility is not always the best choice, since if the negative can show adverse public opinion polls you may have a difficult time overcoming that evidence. Deontological approaches such as those based on the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls may provide better justifications for some topics.
Once you have decided on your value (and the side of the proposition you will argue, if the choice is up to you), then it’s time to think about contentions. Contentions are deductive arguments that demonstrate how affirming or negating the proposition achieves your value. To illustrate the points in this unit, I will use the two sample debates that are included in unit 4. You may benefit from reading these debates as you learn about the role of each speech in a debate.
Let’s start with a topic that I regularly used in my classes until recently: “Resolved, that the United States should permit the recreational use of cannabis.” Most affirmatives chose utility as their value, although a few chose liberty. One common affirmative argument was that public opinion polls supported legalization. While this was (and is) a correct factual claim, it is not by itself a contention. It must be linked to a value to form a deductive argument such as:
Major premise: Utility is maximized by policies that are supported by a popular majority.
Minor premise: A popular majority supports the legalization of cannabis.
Conclusion: Utility is maximized by legalizing cannabis.
Every contention is a deductive argument, even if the major contention is probabilistic. A second common affirmative contention was:
Major premise: Utility is maximized when a more healthy activity is substituted for a less healthy one.
Minor premise 1: Studies show that long-term cannabis use is less likely to harm one’s health than long-term alcohol use.
Minor premise 2: Alcohol consumption declines when people substitute cannabis for alcohol.
Conclusion: Utility is maximized by legalizing cannabis.
Every contention must be matched to the value, otherwise, it will not support the resolution. Therefore, an argument that cannabis should be legalized because freedom is more important than health would not be appropriate for a utility value.
A good rule of thumb is that affirmative constructive speeches should have three contentions. It is difficult to adequately explain more that that in a six-minute speech. They should always be ordered from strongest to weakest, since your first argument often engages listeners the most. Don’t hold back so you can say “but I’ve got an even better contention!” You may lose the audience if you start with an argument that is not your strongest.
In the second debate on U.S. withdrawal from the Refugee Protocol, the affirmative also used utility, but the negative used Kantian justice, which it defined as the protection of universal human rights. The full second negative contention (not explicit from the transcript) goes as follows:
Major premise: Kantian justice requires actions that accord with universal principles.
Minor premise: Non-refoulement is a universal principle.
Conclusion: Kantian justice requires countries to refrain from deporting people to countries where they are likely to suffer persecution (this is what non-refoulement means).
Once you have outlined your contentions, it is time to start building your case. An affirmative debate case has three parts:
- Introduction
- Interim/Value premise
- Contentions and Conclusion
These are discussed in the next three chapters.
