2.3 The Interim
This sounds like a strange term for a segment of a debate case because it suggests a lack of finality. But it makes sense within a debate because a debate is essentially an argument in motion. Unlike a paper, which fixes an argument in time, a debate reverberates with the flow of arguments. No two debates are ever the same. When I participated in national topic debate during my senior year in high school, we used the same affirmative case all year, and never heard the same set of arguments against it. We won almost all of our affirmative rounds until the national debate tournament, when our opponents found a weakness we had never considered and used it to knock us out of the tournament.
The first part of the interim is formulaic: recitation of the resolution. This sets your side in the debate in an unambiguous way. “I support the resolution. . .” or I oppose the resolution. . . ” declares your position with the same finality as a sworn statement. There is no switching sides once you have begun a debate; you must defend your side until the end. If you don’t do this, and your introduction was not clear, it may take a few seconds for the audience to realize what side you are on–and by then you may have lost their attention.
The next thing you need to do in the interim is define your terms. For many topics, this is unnecessary. People rarely quibble over the meaning of “cannabis” or “recreational.” But some debate topics call for a level of change that requires further specification. For example, consider the topic “The US should substantially increase the use of the death penalty.” One affirmative might interpret this as increasing the number of crimes subject to the death penalty. A second might call for mandatory death sentences for repeat murderers, and a third might argue for limiting habeas corpus petitions so that more of those sentenced to death would be executed. Whatever approach you use to this topic will require you to clarify the definition of “substantially increase the use.”
A creative affirmative might interpret “death penalty” as “inheritance tax” and argue that there should be a 50% tax on all inheritances over $1 million. This is not out of bounds in a classroom debate, but you should ask your instructor first if this is an acceptable interpretation. It would probably not be appropriate for an audience that gathered to hear a debate on capital punishment. Whatever your interpretation, make sure that you avoid ambiguity about your approach to the topic in your interim.
The third and most important task for your interim is to establish your value. You need to do more than just state that your value is utility or liberty or Kantian justice. For your value to be clear, you must specify the content of your value. In LD debate as practiced in American high schools, a distinction is made between the value and the criterion; for example, utility is the value, maximizing aggregate happiness is the criterion. However, I find that the division between value and criterion needlessly complicates L/D debate and leads to many misunderstandings and confusing analysis. A clear value necessarily incorporates a criterion: maximizing total happiness, or maximizing happiness subject to a constraint such as protection of individual rights or constitutional freedoms. The value of Kantian justice necessarily encompasses respect for all life or adherence to universal laws; there is no need to identify a separate criterion to explain it.
Being specific about your value is particularly important if you choose utility. A straightforward utility maximization value leaves a debater open to numerous objections that are set forth in the chapter on utilitarianism. Arguing for a rule utilitarian standard avoids many of these problems by incorporating limits on the violation of rights. Make sure you know your value. I have seen many debates where a clever cross-examiner created major problems for debaters who did not adequately know their value. In one debate, after the affirmative debater struggled to articulate his value, he conceded, “ok, you win, I’ll accept your negative value.” This didn’t mean the debate was over, just that the proposition’s defense had to be based on a value that was chosen to defeat it.
You don’t have to argue that your value should apply to all resolutions; what matters is the one you are debating. Utility is appropriate for most but not all topics, but for some resolutions it creates the possibility of counterarguments that are difficult to rebut. Alternatively, it may be difficult to argue that Kantian or Rawlsian values are relevant for some policy issues, but for some policy areas–such as life-and-death issues–these values are often better since they prioritize moral principles over maximization of pleasure.
