|
Every summer thousands of high school debate coaches send their debaters
off to the library to find an affirmative case area for next year's topic.
Some people just do not realize that one of the most difficult tasks in
debate is finding the one golden example of the resolution that will rarely
lose and carry even mediocre teams to the elimination rounds of debate
tournaments. Hopefully this article will dispel the myth that finding
a good affirmative is a "hit or miss" process. This article
should prove useful in finding that "perfect" affirmative case;
the purpose of which is, to paraphrase Aristotle, to find the truth and
reduce your opponents to babble. (1)
It is a mistake to head off to the library without any advance planning.
Since these quests usually end up being fruitless and frustrating, they
should be avoided at all costs. The first step in selecting an affirmative
case area should be brainstorming for every conceivable interpretation
of the resolution that you can dream up. Don't just limit yourself to
your own ideas either, for brainstorming yields far greater results when
it is done along with your coach or fellow debaters. You might even want
to check the effectiveness of your idea sessions by interviewing experts
on the topic for their ideas. It is possible that these people can be
helpful in pointing out areas of the topic that you had not thought of
before.
A short cut to all these activities, but I recommend it only as a third
step in the brainstorming process, is simply to look through the table
of contents in the various debate handbooks that exist. In debate handbooks
you will find the results of the many hours of brainstorming for case
areas that go into the preparation of your better handbooks.
Do not try to decide upon a particular case during the brainstorming sessions.
It is unlikely that the best affirmative case area will be discovered
by discussion alone unless you are discussing the topic with people that
are extremely well versed on the topic area. That means the next major
step will be going to the library to being researching negative evidence
against the case areas you have come up with. It's during your negative
research that you will begin figuring out which problem areas will make
the strongest affirmative cases.
You should of course be looking for an affirmative case that has very
few potential disadvantages, very little negative evidence against it
and makes good common sense. Beyond this advice debate textbooks usually
fail to mention some other important ideas. First, you should try to ensure
that the case area has enough evidence to adequately defend it against
a series of negative attacks. Every affirmative case argument should ideally
have enough evidence supporting it to answer the original negative argument,
the first negative rebuttal extension and, if necessary, to defend against
a second negative rebuttal argument.
Secondly, you should consider the people most likely to be judging you
during the year. An affirmative case that is rejected on face value by
judge because it seems too outlandish or beyond the realm of the resolution
is hardly likely to advance your cause, no matter how well you think you
can convince them to the contrary. It will be much easier for you to run
an affirmative case that the judges will at least be willing to listen
to instead of rejecting it our of hand.
Finding the affirmative case best suited to you and your partner will
require a bit of self analysis. An affirmative case should be selected
that will minimize any team weaknesses that you may have. For instance,
if you are not a regular little speed demon when it comes to covering
great numbers of arguments you will want to run an affirmative case that
has very few potential negative arguments (a dearth of negative evidence
would not hurt, either).
Debate coaches usually end up putting the weaker or more inexperienced
speaker in the first affirmative speaker position. This situation can
be remedied by utilizing an affirmative case where the stronger negative
arguments are going to be issued by the first negative speaker. This allows
the stronger affirmative speaker to answer the bulk of the negative attack.
In these circumstances it is also wise to run an affirmative case that
has few potential plan objections. This type of affirmative case maximizes
the first affirmative rebuttalist's chances of having adequate case side
coverage during the debate.
Once a problem area has been selected don't just throw yourself headlong
into the writing process. Before you begin to actually write the case
up into manuscript form you should make a brief outline of how you intend
to structure the case. This outline is just like the shorthand notes you
take of another team's affirmative speech during the debate. After this
step is completed, go through your affirmative evidence and decide which
pieces you will be using in the first affirmative speech. Keep in mind
that for a coherent eight minute speech you will probably want to limit
yourself to about fifteen to twenty average length pieces of evidence.
I also strongly suggest that you put the best evidence and arguments in
the first speech. Saving some of your best arguments for strategic purposes
can prove to be a tragic mistake. Usually you end up not being able to
read them or else they get lost in the shuffle with other less important
arguments.
Many different options exist when you are finally ready to decide upon
how to structure your affirmative case. You will find, however, that your
decision as to which of these formats to use will be influenced by the
problem area you select, the debate topic for the year and your strengths
and weaknesses as debaters. Don't think that the four examples about to
be mentioned here exhaust all the possibilities of how to structure your
affirmative case; they do not. But I do consider these to be the most
common debate case formats.
The needs analysis case is a remnant from the olden days of debate when
men were still men, dinosaurs roamed the earth and your debate coach was
actually debating. The structure of a needs analysis case is simple and
straightforward. Begin, as with any other type of affirmative case, with
an introductory paragraph that briefly explains the thesis of the case
and announces the wording of the debate resolution. Contention number
one will try to establish that a need to change exists somewhere in the
status quo. This first contention is where you will be establishing the
stock issues more commonly known as significance and harm. Needs for change
on this year's topic might include the arguments that U.S. weapons are
propping up unjust dictatorships, U.S. weapons increase the levels of
violence when conflicts break out, U.S. arms sales are morally reprehensible,
etc.
The second contention will snow that the status quo is inherently incapable
of solving the need for change mentioned in the first contention. If any
aspect of debate could be called controversial it is certainly the issue
of inherence. Since inherence means many things to different people I
will not presume to impose any one view of inherence upon the reader.
I will only explain that to prove inherence you must be able to prove
that the status quo is either barred by law or attitude from solving the
problem outlined in the first contention. Be warned that the more conservative
judges believe "an inherent need is one so fixed, so imbedded, so
structurally a part of the status quo that it cannot be solved by modifications,
adjustments, or repairs." (2) This philosophy of inherence virtually
eliminates the use of attitudes as a legitimate inherent barrier.
Next, read the plan that is to be instituted to eliminate or reduce the
problems cited in the first two contentions. Once the affirmative plan
has been introduced into the debate you are ready to demonstrate the advantages
this plan will create. A needs analysis case calls for the third contention
to document how the plan would solve the problems of the status quo and
the advantages that would stem from such changes. Since teams have lately
been including the advantages in the first contention, the third contention
of a needs analysis case has evolved into nothing more than a contention
that documents solvency.
The advantages of the needs analysis case are that it is easy to defend,
easy for judges to comprehend, easy to write and is widely accepted as
a way to structure cases. Needs analysis lends itself very well to problem
areas that have pragmatic harms (death and/or massive suffering) that
can be solved almost in entirety by an affirmative plan.
Comparative advantage analysis is a more recent creation and an offshoot
of the needs analysis case. The difference between the two is the needs
analysis case states that there is a problem and the status quo is doing
nothing to solve it, whereas the comparative advantage case claims that
while the present system is attempting to solve a given problem, better
ways to solve the problem exist.
In the introduction for the comparative advantage case you explain in
your own words how a problem exists in the status quo. Then introduce
your plan for solving the problem. After reading the plan you say that
its adoption will ensure the following comparative advantage and state,
in label form, the exact wording of the advantage, e.g., "we minimize
the risk of war in the Middle East." Instead of using contentions
you will subdivide the advantage into lettered subpoints. The first subpoint
(A) demonstrates that a problem exists and it is harmful. The second subpoint
(B) explains that although the status quo may be attempting to solve the
problem, the methods being used are inadequate. The final subpoint (C)
is where you prove that the affirmative plan is superior to the efforts
of the status quo.
By using comparative advantage analysis you can effectively lower your
inherency burden. Now you are not faced with the monumental task of proving
that the status quo is not moving at all to solve the problem, but instead
you are merely trying to prove that your plan will get a better result
than status quo efforts. However, for most of the judges that will be
hearing your case you had still better be able to demonstrate some reason
as to why the status quo is locked into their misguided policies.
Another advantage to this approach is that it is tailor made for problem
areas where you are unlikely to be able to solve all of the problem. Unlike
the needs case, you are now only claiming to solve the problem better
than the status quo can instead of trying to claim near complete solvency.
An approach to writing affirmative cases that is too often ignored is
the goals analysis case. With this type of affirmative case you begin
with an observation stating x to be a goal of the status quo, e.g., "stability
in Latin America is a goal of the United States' foreign policy."
After the observation a plan should be read that will act to eliminate
or alter some aspect of our foreign policy that restricts the United States'
ability to meet that goal. Following the plan should be two contentions
that prove the status quo to be incapable of achieving its own goal and
that the affirmative plan would better meet that goal.
The goals analysis case is unique in that the affirmative team can legitimately
claim that they do not have to prove that fulfilling a goal of the status
quo is desireable. The gist of this approach is that merely fulfilling
a goal of the status quo is in and of itself a compelling reason to adopt
the resolution; in other words, a goal of the status quo must be beneficial
or else we wouldn't have it as a goal.
The goals analysis case gives an affirmative the edge because most of
the time the negative plan attacks will also apply to current status quo
efforts to fulfill the goal. The affirmative is only claiming that the
current efforts of the status quo are insufficient.
A final, and often maligned, approach to writing an affirmative case is
the alternative justification case. Briefly, the alternative n case begins
with the presentation of two or three distinctly separate "miniplans."
Each plan could function without the other plans and has separate administration,
financing and enforcement. These plans will deal with two different subtopics
of the resolution, e.g. a plan that stopped U.S. arms sales to Morocco
and a plan that stopped U.S. arms sales to El Salvador. Once the plans
are introduced there would be a presentation of the two advantages that
would be generated by the plans. Each advantage, although in a shortened
form, would still have to meet the normal prima facie burdens of significance,
inherency and solvency.
Alternative justification cases gives the affirmative team a sizeable
edge in a debate round. The negative team is forced to divide their time
between two or three reasons to vote affirmative instead of being able
to pound on one particular case all round long. Since either one of the
advantages by itself would justify the resolution the affirmative has
the luxury of deciding during the debate which advantage and plan they
would like to ultimately defend. An affirmative team could thus select
the advantage which has the weakest negative attack going against it and
end up winning most of the time. This strategy would certainly benefit
teams that have trouble covering a lot of negative arguments because they
could collapse the debating down to one advantage in rebuttals and have
more time to focus on fewer negative arguments.
No matter how you decide to structure your affirmative case remember that
the text of the speech should read like a formal term paper. Too often
debaters think of the first affirmative speech as nothing more than a
bunch of evidence cards separated by a few labels. The speech should begin
with a brief, catchy introduction to grasp the audience's attention. When
you get to the main body of the speech don't be afraid to use your own
words to create rhetorical transitions between subpoints and individual
pieces of evidence. If anything, such transitions break up monotony and
give the judge some time to take notes on the label or evidence that was
just read.
Beginning debaters too often give as much thought to selecting and constructing
an affirmative case as they do to what to have for lunch in the cafeteria.
Such a "we work in the dark, we do what we can" approach can
only be discouraging and deadly to the old win-loss record. Since the
affirmative speech will be used in a little over half of your debates,
don't you think the time invested would be worth the effort?
1. Aristotle. On
Socio-histical Refutations.181b, 15.
2. Freely, Austin J. Argumentation and Debate.(Belmont, Cardwrth Publishing
Co.(1971), p. 192.
|