2.8 The Negative Rebuttal/Summation
The final negative speech in L/D debate is 6 minutes long, and there is alot to cover since this is your last opportunity to speak. Since the affirmative still has one more speech, you need to leave a strong and lasting impression in your rebuttal/summation. You also need to identify the key points of disagreement in the debate, which are known as voting issues.
To the extent that the value remains undecided, this is your last chance to show why the judge should choose your value over the affirmative’s. Any time the value is disputed, you should identify your value as a voting issue and explain why your side makes the best argument for the choice of value. This was the first thing the negative did in the Refugee Protocol debate to reaffirm its human rights/Kantian justice value.
Then you need to move on to your final rebuttal of the affirmative arguments. Much as in the negative constructive, you will be more persuasive if you can show why the resolution should be rejected, as opposed to just demonstrating why the affirmative has failed to prove its case. You should identify your strongest contention as a second voting issue. This may be the argument you consider the strongest, regardless of affirmative attacks, or the argument that received the weakest attack from the affirmative. Make sure you explain why this contention matters to the outcome of the debate.
In the cannabis debate, there was no dispute about values, but substantial disagreement about the affirmative’s three contentions. The negative identified each contention as a voting issue and linked its arguments to the idea that the status quo of different state policies was better than a national policy. The common theme was that there is not yet enough evidence to adopt the resolution, as there were problems with each of the negative arguments.
In the Refugee Protocol debate, the negative chose one of the affirmative’s main issues–cost–as its second voting issue. This was because it had undercut many of the cost issues and made a key point in its favor from the same source the affirmative had cited for its cost estimate. It also chose as a voting issue a point it had raised as a rebuttal–Americans take pride in offering asylum to those facing persecution. Since the negative knew it would win the debate if its value was chosen, it chose two voting issues that were directed to the affirmative value so it would have a chance to win on that value–which turned out to be a good decision!
Don’t get so caught up in identifying a negative voting issue that you forget to rebut the affirmative’s counterarguments on your other contentions. Failure to do so may mean the affirmative will claim that you dropped them and thus claim victory on those issues. However, if an issue is of minor significance to the outcome of the debate, it is ok to omit a response.
Finally, make sure that you address the affirmative’s contentions if they remain undecided in the debate. In the cannabis debate, the negative integrated the affirmative’s contention into its own contentions, so there was no clear separation. If that happens, don’t worry, it is generally a sign that there has been good clash during the debate. In the Refugee Protocol debate, the negative began by refuting the affirmative’s arguments before identifying its second and third voting issues, which was a winning strategy.
If you can think of a good concluding line, add that at the end of your second and last speech. But don’t stress about it–the arguments you made during your last speech are far more important to winning the debate.
