2.5 The Negative Constructive
There is a lot to do in the negative constructive speech. In this chapter, we’ll examine the three major tasks for the negative debater: addressing the affirmative value, presenting the negative case, and refuting the affirmative case. But first, a word about the negative introduction.
Most competent affirmative debaters can gain the sympathy of the audience during their speech. Unless listeners have made up their minds in advance about the resolution, they naturally sympathize with the first argument they hear on a topic. So the negative should try to flip the sympathy of the audience, or at least convince it to listen to the arguments against the topic. The contents of an effective introduction are covered in chapter 2 of this unit; the negative’s introduction follows similar guidelines.
However, the negative has a powerful additional option that is not available to the affirmative: turning around the affirmative’s introduction. Here’s an example: One affirmative debater arguing for the abolition of the death penalty began with a story of a defendant who had been wrongfully convicted of a gruesome murder and executed before the real murderer was identified. The negative debater began by referring to the gruesome murder without mentioning the wrongful conviction and remarked, “it is for cases like this that the death penalty was made. That is what should happen to the real murderer. This debate is not about the bias of the prosecutor in that murder case.” There is nothing more powerful for a negative debater than turning the affirmative’s introduction into a reason for rejecting the resolution.
In the Refugee Protocol debate, the negative attacked the affirmative’s lifeboat analogy to illustrate how the immigration problem was not about expelling people from the US but rather about letting too many people in. By proposing an alternative explanation for the problem that did not involve adopting the resolution, the negative showed that the benefits could be achieved through what was effectively a counterplan. This is when the negative admits that there are problems but proposes a better way to solve them than adopting the resolution. It also helped that the counterplan was actually being put in place (at least partially) by the current President.
Once the introduction is over, the negative shifts by using a formulaic statement similar to the affirmative: “I oppose the resolution that . . .” This should be followed by any discussion of definitions essential to clarify the debate. This includes not just the words of the topic but also the affirmative’s value premise. If there is unclarity or ambiguity, point that out. If you fail to do so, it is too late to do so later in the debate. Your first constructive speech must address every affirmative argument that you intend to contest during the debate. If you fail to respond to an opponent’s point at your first opportunity–i.e. in the next speech, the opponent is entitled to claim victory on that issue. This is what is known as dropping an argument.
If you share the affirmative’s value, all you need to say is that you agree on the value and move on to your next task–either presenting your contentions or refuting the affirmative’s. This means the affirmative’s value will govern the debate, and the side that more persuasively shows it will achieve that value will win. This is what happened in the cannabis debate.
However, if you have chosen a different value than the affirmative, then you need to identify it at the beginning of your speech. This means the debate will then take place on parallel tracks–which value is most appropriate for the topic and which side best achieves that value. When the negative introduces a different value, it must also to show why it is more appropriate to use in evaluating the resolution than the value the affirmative has chosen. The judge will have to decide which value is a better one for resolving the debate and then determine which side has made better arguments concerning that value.
This is what happened in the Refugee Protocol debate. The negative argued that Kantian justice, defined as protection for universal human rights, was more appropriate in a debate over whether the US should change its policy of not sending unauthorized aliens to countries where they would likely face persecution. The argument was that Americans value the principle of non-refoulement over utility, as they are willing to absorb the cost of giving refuge to some number of aliens. Debate was joined over the value, and both sides had to make arguments that addressed both utility and non-refoulement. Here the negative had an advantage since there were ample good utilitarian reasons to reject the resolution, but no good Kantian reasons that the affirmative could find.
The usual presumption in favor of the negative does not apply if the negative challenges the affirmative’s choice of value. When the negative proposes an alternative value, it assumes the burden of proof on that issue. Only if the negative can persuade the judge that its alternative value is more appropriate will the judge use that value to decide the debate. If the judge is not persuaded, as was the case in the Refugee Protocol debate, then the affirmative’s value decides the debate.
Once the value discussion is over, the negative has a choice about what to do next: either present its prepared case against the resolution or refute the affirmative arguments. If the negative has different contentions than the affirmative, it usually makes sense to introduce those issues before moving on to refutation. This is because audiences are persuaded more by reasons to vote in favor of one side than reasons to vote against the other side. Presenting your contentions allows you to shift the ground for the debate from the affirmative’s perspective to your own.
Since the negative needs to leave time to respond to the affirmative’s contentions (or they will be dropped), the negative must divide its speech between its contentions and refuting the affirmative’s contentions. A good rule of thumb is that the negative should divide the 7 minutes for its constructive speech roughly into two (assuming there is no overlap). However, in many debates the negative’s contentions will be directly responsive to the affirmative’s arguments, and time can be saved by integrating refutation into the presentation of its contentions. In the sample debate the negative did this by showing how its contentions refuted the affirmative’s contentions.
In the cannabis debate, the affirmative integrated its refutation into its contentions. First, it argued that legalization of cannabis would harm children, and then responded to the affirmative’s study by arguing that it failed to take the interest of children into account. The crux of the negative’s first contention was that the poll the affirmative cited ignored the extent of utility gains from legalization. Then, the negative argued that cannabis use caused health harms, and used this evidence to claim that any prosperity gains were only temporary. Finally, it argued that cannabis use increased risk of accidents for the general public, and refuted the affirmative’s claim of better road safety by pointing out that this assumed cannabis users would stop drinking.
The negative also introduced a fourth contention at the end of its speech, which is that it didn’t have to argue that recreational cannabis use should be banned, only that the ban should not be extended throughout the country. This focus on the resolution is important because debate is about changing the status quo, not comparing two extremes. The negative can win simply by arguing that waiting on national legalization is better than immediate national legalization, which makes victory more easy to achieve.
In the Refugee Protocol debate, the negative first presented its counterplan, that the real problem was poor enforcement at the borders, not the Refugee Protocol. It accepted that there was a need for change but said that the policies of the Trump administration were providing a better way of solving the problems than the resolution would. This is what happens when the negative presents a counterplan: it agrees with the affirmative that there is a need for change, but turns the debate into a comparison of the resolution with the negative’s proposed solution. This is often an effective strategy when the need for reform is clear.
Then the negative offered a defense of its plan under its preferred value before addressing the three affirmative contentions under the utility standard as well as Kantian justice. This was essential since the negative ended up losing on the value but still won the debate because it demonstrated that the resolution would not increase overall utility. Had it merely argued under its own value, it would have dropped the affirmative’s contentions and lost the debate.
Be aware that if the negative offers an alternative value it complicates the debate and expands the responsibilities of both sides, especially the negative. For novice debaters it is usually better to accept the affirmative’s value–at least in their first debate–since there is already a lot to do without these additional responsibilities.
Learning how to debate values is nevertheless an important skill since the outcome of many resolutions will be dependent on the value chosen. Debaters need to recognize that resolving issues often means more than refuting affirmative arguments, as that implies it accepts the affirmative’s value. Winning a debate with an alternative value definitely takes more effort, but it is worthwhile if you can persuade the judge that there is a better way of looking at the resolution. Whomever wins the value usually–but not always–wins the debate.
