Gerry Paul, University of Arizona

1982 - Arms Sales: The Politics of Destruction

Most debaters know what they are supposed to do in rebuttal speeches. From constant repetition in lectures, students can spout off the need for refutation and extension. Arguments should not just be repeated but should 'respond to an opponent's answers ... leaving the opponent no other option but to be responsive."(#l) Practicing debaters also know that it is easier to rattle off the theoretical contents of a good rebuttal than it is to actually deliver one. In fact, the difference between a fair debater and a good debater becomes apparent during rebuttal speeches. Almost anyone can read arguments during a constructive. Extending and winning arguments is a far more difficult task. The first affirmative rebuttal has been termed "the most difficult and most important speech within any debate round."(42) The 1AR must answer sixteen minutes worth of negative argumentation (the 2NC and the 1NR) within four or five minutes. At a minimum, all plan objections must be answered. The 2AR must be the "ultimate in persuasion."(#3) Given these Herculean tasks, it is an understatement to note that most affirmative rebuttals could withstand improvement. Some practical suggestions may help actual affirmative rebuttals resemble the textbook ideal.

Perhaps the most important aspect of a quality first affirmative rebuttal is quality research. Good evidence makes the 1AR's-burden significantly lighter. There are several ways to obtain good 1AR evidence. First, when researching your affirmative case, read the literature with a second negative's mind. Think creatively about how all those quotes that do not fit into your constructive speech can be used to create disadvantages. Then cut the cards that beat those arguments. Second, make sure that the second negatives on your squad cut the evidence to beat the disadvantages they are writing. This method is especially useful against generic arguments. Third, before the first tournament, brainstorm with your partner, squad members, and coaches about possible disadvantages to your case. Go and research answers to these arguments even though they may have never been run against you. Fourth, establish a good surveillance network. Talk to tournament participants who run cases similar to yours. Find out what second negatives are arguing and research any new arguments before the next tournament. Finally, read the popular press. By keeping up with events in your local newspaper, TIME, BUSINESS WEEK, and other popular periodicals, you will have access to the most recent evidence. These publications regularly carry articles that are a boon to IARS. For example, many teams argue disadvantages that are linked to economic growth. The uniqueness of these arguments frequently rests on evidence that is several months old. Having cards from yesterday's TIME articles on the new economic boom can do tremendous damage to a growth argument.

Although essential, good research is nothing unless it is organized. Therefore, before any debating begins a 1AR should prepare his arguments in brief or block form. 1AR blocks should be carefully written. Before setting anything to paper, cut concisely all evidence to be put on the block. Providing that the author's intent can be preserved, only the essential portions of a card should be typed on the brief. Block responses to disadvantage links separately from responses to disadvantage impact. Such separation makes the 2AR more organized and the purpose of each answer is instantly clear in the judge's mind. Write generic 1AR blocks to battle generic disadvantages. For example, on the trade union topic in college, many separate disadvantage impacts linked to union perceptions of the plan's effect on organized labor. A generic 1AR block on union perceptions applied to many second negative arguments. When writing a 1AR block, leave off the cheap presses. Responses like "What's the quantification?" and "Why isn't this happening now?" waste time and are of little additional value when you have real arguments. Nevertheless, presses like these are not entirely worthless. You and your squad members should sit down sometime and think up all the presses and interrogative arguments you possibly can. Organize them and type them nicely, into a block entitled "20 Questions" accompanied by a warning label that reads: "Use only when you absolutely, positively have nothing else to say."

The 1AR and 2AR can be determinative of victory or defeat in a debate, so considerable thought should be given to assignment of speaker positions. The first affirmative rebuttal is a demanding speech that requires speed, clarity, and tremendous word economy. Arguments cannot be over explained in 1AR or other important arguments will not be covered. On the other hand, the second affirmative rebuttal is generally taken a little slower, with more explanation, and requires an unfailing ability to view the debate as a gestalt. Traditionally, the speaker that delivers the 1AC also delivers the 1AR. This assignment of speaker positions works well for many teams. But on some teams the second affirmative speaker is more adept at the rapid delivery that has become so popular, and the first affirmative is the gifted orator. In such instances, teams have the speaker who delivers the 2AC also deliver the 1AR. The assignment of "inside" speeches to the second affirmative can yield many advantages. The faster speaker is delivering the speech that requires his speed and the 2AR has a clear, uninterrupted view of the debate. The judge is the only other participant who sees the debate as a whole. Given their unique viewpoints, the 2AR and the judge are more likely to perceive issues in a similar manner when the 2AR is giving outside speeches.

The obvious reason for all this preparation before the debate is to save time during the debate. Preparation time is one of these things that cannot be saved from round to round and its conservation is essential. During the round, preparation time can be saved through cooperation between the 1AR and the 2AR. If the 1AR is well blocked, he can write his responses to an argument as it is being delivered. During the 2NC, the 2AR should be listening especially close, noting any extraordinary strengths, weaknesses, oddities, independent links, or preemptions of which the 1AR should be aware. Prior to the 1AR these notes should be briefly discussed to ensure that the 1AR is fully cognizant of the depth of the arguments he is about to answer.

If a 1AR is surprised by an argument and has no blocks he will have to search for answers. But 1AR answers, like anything else, are not found just anywhere you look. One good place to look for plan answers is in your file. Many 2NCs take the impact for their disadvantages from other areas of the topic. Chances are that you have some evidence on the disadvantage in your 1NC or 2NC files. For example, on the military topic many affirmative teams argued that the MX missile should not be built. Negatives argued a disadvantage that not building the MX would harm the nuclear umbrella over the NATO countries and the Soviets would attack, Answers to this argument could be found in the first negative files on the effectiveness of nuclear umbrellas. In addition, look for causes of the impact to the disadvantage other than the affirmative plan. Things in the real world, especially cataclysms, seldom have one cause. Identification of additional causes undermines the uniqueness of a disadvantage. Finally, look for contradictions between disadvantages. More than most 2NCs like to admit, disadvantages have conflicting premises. For example, two arguments that are certain to be popular this year are "Nuclear proliferation is ou; friend" and "Anti-ballistic missiles are our fr4ends." Proliferation is good because it scares everyone out of war. ABMs are good because we can use them to shoot nuclear weapons out of the sky and we need not fear them anymore. When these two arguments are run together, one neutralizes the other. Proliferation is good because it is scary but ABMs remove i.e. fright from proliferation. 1ARs should note that Malthus arguments, which state that it is better to kill people than let them live, contradict just about all other disadvantages.

A good 1AR must be wary of standard second negative tricks. Many 2NCs bury little bombs deep within the structure of their arguments that, unless effectively diffused by the 1AR, will blow up in the 2AR's face under the hefty huffing and puffing of the 2NR. For example, 2NCs often promulgate independent links to their disadvantages. If an impact links to an affirmative plan in three separate ways, the affirmative gains little by disproving two links and leaving the third unscathed. The 2NR will grant two links, claim the third as independent, win the disadvantage, and move on. Independent links must be answered independently, or proven to depend on arguments beaten elsewhere. In a similar manner, many 2NCs preempt 1AR responses. A good 1AR must answer those preemptions that apply to responses that apply to responses the affirmative uses. It is fruitless for a 1AR to spend two minutes arguing turn-around responses to a disadvantage without answering the five reasons why turnarounds are illegitimate. Finally, be wary of absolute plan-meet advantage arguments or tiny topicality arguments hidden within larger structures. Second negative rebuttalists like nothing better than shouting about "dropped" arguments that were buried.

Now that a 1AR has responses to every argument, these responses should be put in some sort of order. More often than not, 1AR answers are spewed out in the order they popped into the speaker's head. Haphazard ordering can be costly. If the 1AR is running out of time and must jettison some of his responses, he must choose instantly during the speech which responses to abandon. But if the 1AR had ordered responses from best to worst prior to speaking, no snap decisions need be made. The best responses will have been made no matter where he quit.

Although important, planning alone will not produce a good JAR. The actual execution of the speech is equally important. Many speakers find a "road map" a useful tool in organizing their speeches. Their road map is a short statement delivered just prior to beginning the speech that tells the judge and the opponents exactly what sections of the flowsheet the speaker will cover and in what order. A judge hates to shift through fifteen sheets of legal paper only to find the page he wants a minute after the speaker has moved to a different area of the flow.

When planning the road map, the 1AR must answer the question, "Where do I start?" Traditionally, the 1AR begins his speech with the second negatives arguments, or on plan side. If something remains unanswered at the end of the 1AR, it will be case arguments. At least the 2AC has already said something about them. Starting on plan side is generally smart when case needs little attention to clinch the debate for the affirmative. nevertheless, a more flashy, gutsy strategy is being used by some affirmative teams. If case needs more time than cursory coverage and the Plan arguments are well blocked, some 1ARs will begin on case side. This strategy also has advantages. Case side is sure to get the attention it needs and plan arguments can be answered with greater speed and efficiency by simply debating until time runs out. Despite these advantages, many second affirmatives suffer near heart failure when the timekeeper signals 30 seconds and there are still two disadvantages to cover.

Such pressure situations demand that the 1AR have excellent word economy. He should say as much as possible with as few words as possible. Ideally, the 1AR should be the perfect balance between clarity and brevity. Several practices can help move a speaker closer to the ideal. First, make the 1AR tag lines descriptive. A few well chosen words blocked out before the debate can save precious seconds in the round. Second, eliminate excess verbiage. Listen to yourself give a 1AR. (Use a tape recorder.) Much of what you say is unnecessary. For example, when labeling responses, many people say "number one" rather than just "one." Everyone knows that you mean "number one" when you say "one," so "number" is unnecessary. If you make thirty responses in the average 1AR, you can see how much time a small change like this can save by repeating "number" to yourself 30 times. Third, keep a good flowsheet that closely follows structure. By identifying your position on the flow relative to the main argument's structure, you will save time by not having to repeat the argument. Fourth, do not overkill arguments. One piece of evidence under a response is generally sufficient. If more is necessary, the 2AR can read it. Finally, arguments can be grouped together and answered. On plan side, entire disadvantages can be grouped and answered if there are no independent links or preemptions that demand individual attention. Case arguments can often be grouped into general categories and answered more quickly.

Finally, a good 1AR needs a helpful colleague. The 2AR must always be aware of how much time remains in the 1AR's speech. He should give the 1AR constant hand signals so that his remaining time is available to him whenever he glances up.

In addition to these general suggestions governing the 1AR, several specific argument types and strategies should be discussed. Topicality is an argument that requires special handling. In general, answer topicality first because topicality is an absolute issue. Dropping it is fatal. Topicality blocks or briefs can be useful if they are written expressly, for the 1AR. Otherwise they, may be too lengthy and rigid for the 1AR. When arguing topicality in 1AR, the key is clarity. Be able to state briefly and clearly exactly what it is that makes your case topical.

Affirmatives do not win on case significance alone, and consequently "turnarounds" are becoming popular arguments. A turn around is a response to a disadvantage that either makes good out of bad or argues that the affirmative does not cause but rather presents it. Turnarounds are especially powerful 1AR responses and it is a good idea to try and put one on every disadvantage argued by the negative. By turning each disadvantage, @he 2NR is prevented from merely abandoning the argument to save time, lest his own disadvantage become additional affirmative significance. Despite their power, turns can be dangerous in the hands of the unskilled affirmative debater. It is possible to have too much of a good thing, especially when disadvantages are double turned. An example will illustrate. The affirmative plan stops arms sales. The negative argues that stopping arms sales will increase nuclear proliferation and that is bad. The IAR says "Turn around: arms sales encourage proliferation" and not two seconds later says "Turn around: proliferation is good." What the 1AR has done is turned both the link and the impact of the disadvantage. His zeal causes the affirmative to prevent proliferation, yet proliferation by their own admission is good. Double turnarounds are rather like pinning yourself while wrestling: it is terribly embarrassing and difficult to escape from because you cannot figure out how you did it in the first place.

One final 1AR strategy that is becoming popular has been affectionately termed "The Disco." Affirmatives in need of this strategy are generally being thoroughly trounced by negatives on all but a single argument. To extricate themselves from the jaws of defeat, the 1AR grant's the lions share of the debate to the negative and collapses to a single issue, usually something insignificant the affirmative can win. An affirmative disco dances around negative positions by granting out topicality or solvency arguments to diffuse advantages. Then they retreat to their tiny slice of ground (usually the elusive but omnipresent "process") to claim victory over a baffled negative team. If you feel compelled to use the disco strategy sometimes, you must be careful about its execution. Not all judges are receptive to such gamesmanship. Other judges love it, however. In any instance, make it clear what you are doing. Explain the strategy to the judge and put all the issues together for him. Second, place the "shame" of the disco strategy on the negative. Using faultless logic, explain how the negative team brought this upon themselves by arguing contradictory positions and ignoring part of the affirmative case.

Disco is not without its dangers, however. Watch for arguments on other parts of the flowsheet that can make the granted arguments apply to the affirmative. Furthermore, when granting arguments, retain sufficient affirmative arguments to meet the prima facie burdens. Some debates have been veritable festivals of argument granting, disco, and logical twists. Much to the dismay of the affirmative, they often discover that they have granted away all of their significance to get rid of the disadvantages.

No matter how brilliantly the 1AR performs, few debates will be won if the 2AR speaks poorly. Although an adequate 2AR is fairly simple, a good 2AR is a far more difficult feat. The 2AR is an evaluative speech in which the affirmative case is sold, despite its dents and holes, and constant comparison to the negative's alternative. A good 2AR is a magician that can pull wins from thin air leaving the 2NR scratching their heads and wondering how they could have lost.

Preparation for the 2AR begins before the debate. The 2AR should be familiar with all 1AR evidence and blocked responses. This familiarity makes the 2AR sound more confident and persuasive and saves preparation time, because the 1AR will not have to explain arguments to the 2AR. When preparing for the 2AR during the debate, many speakers work on the plan arguments first, especially if the 2AR is the same speaker that does 2AC. While case arguments are often the same round after round, plan arguments frequently differ greatly. If preparation time runs short, the 2AR will be prepared on the unfamiliar arguments. It is easier to ad lib responses on familiar ground than on unfamiliar ground.

When choosing issues to discuss in 2AR it is natural to talk about your strongest responses. But the strength of the 1AR responses must be balanced against the coverage each response received in 2NR. Choose to extend the responses you have the best chance of winning. It may be better to win three adequate responses to a disadvantage in 30 seconds than spending a minute winning a terrific response and dropping all of case side.

As in the 1AR, it helps if the 2AR delivers a road map before speaking. This not only makes the speech more organized, but highlights issues in the judge's mind. When formulating the map, it is good to begin the 2AR on the plan arguments and end with the case. Plan arguments were initiated by the negative while the case arguments were initiated by the affirmative. It is a psychological advantage to end the debate on your own ground.

When extending 1AR responses to a disadvantage, the 2AR should constantly keep in mind the way he wants the debate to be decided. Some framework should be established in which the judge can evaluate the relative importance of a disadvantage. Even if this standard is crude balancing of lives, the 2AR should be forever placing each argument on these scales of his construction to be weighed against the affirmative case. Dropped 1AR responses should be extended first. Point out that these arguments are dropped and briefly describe the damage each does to the disadvantage. In numerical order, work your way through the remaining responses you wish to extend. Explain why 2NR extensions do not beat 1AR responses. Read some more evidence if necessary. When explaining responses, especially those you think should get a mention on the ballot, take that explanation one level further than you think it needs to go. Judges are intelligent people but you cannot expect them to be as familiar as you are with your affirmative case.

When extending turn around responses on a disadvantage, be sure to claim the disadvantage as additional affirmative significance. Turnarounds are more important plan responses that frequently decide a debate round so make sure that everyone understands the logic involved. Turns are often complex and counter-intuitive. Some 2NRs are scared off disadvantages by turn around responses and will try to get rid of the turn around by granting away the disadvantage's uniqueness or links. The 2AR should not ignore a turn mishandled by a 2NR. Granting 1AR uniqueness answers does not disarm the turn around. The grant merely means that the impact is occurring now, but the turn around response means that the affirmative is capable of preventing the malady in the future.

Case arguments are frequently the easiest arguments to extend in the 2AR. A clear presentation of the concepts the affirmative wants to win is often sufficient to win case side when negative argumentation has not been too heavy. Areas the negative is winning require more detailed attention, however. Trouble spots on case should be dealt with point by point, ending with an evaluative explanation of how each argument is insufficient to fatally damage the affirmative case.

Extending topicality in 2AR must be done carefully. By observing the judge during the other rebuttals, it is often easy to ascertain how a judge feels about a topicality argument. Decide how much time should be spent on the argument by determining how receptive the judge is to the topicality argument. Under any circumstances, it is best to begin the 2AR on the topicality argument. Pleading that your case is topical is an unpersuasive way to end a speech and the argument could easily be dropped if it is saved for last. Finally, be able to state clearly and simply why your case is topical. Judges usually do not like to vote on topicality and if you supply him with a nice phrase to write on the ballot he probably will not vote on it.

Rebuttals are theoretically reserved for extension of arguments. New arguments are disallowed. Nevertheless, a good 2AR can create responses where there were none and make up for shoddy 1AR coverage. One source of "arguments that sound new but aren't" is cross application. Arguments are taken from case or dropped plan arguments are used to help clinch points for the affirmative. When cross-applying arguments, make clear what you are doing. Let the judge know an argument's source and final destination when it travels across the flow. Otherwise, a judge may disallow cross applied answers as new.

The 2AR is the last speaker in the debate and consequently has the final and most fertile opportunity to put the round together in the judge's mind. A fifteen second summary at the end of the 2AR can win many rounds. The goal of this summary is to verbally "write" the ballot for the affirmative, resolving any lingering doubt or confusion the judge may have about the desirability of the affirmative. In this summary, mention the plan arguments and how to resolve them in your favor. Use the tag lines of key responses. Catalog the weaknesses of each disadvantage. Juxtapose the weakened plan arguments against the newly rebuilt affirmative case. Describe your case in concrete detail and place your significance in human terms. In short, take all the issues and package them realistically in such a way that the affirmative wins. Chances are that the negative case will not be as neatly packaged as the affirmative case, and it is far more difficult for a judge to choose bits and pieces of negative argumentation over a pre-written affirmative ballot.

Rebuttal speeches are the key to affirmative wins. And any successful debater will agree that affirmative wins are the key to tournament success. Presumably, you chose your case because you think that it is a good one. Therefore, capitalize on your affirmative case selection by delivering good rebuttals. A team that wins on the affirmative is likely to be a successful team.

NOTES

1/ Joe McAdoo, "Extending Arguments," ADVANCED DEBATE: READINGS IN THEORY, PRACTICE AND TEACIIING, David A. Thomas, editor. (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Company), 1977, p 199.
2/ James Edward Sayer, ARGUMFNTATION AND DEBATE: PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION, (Sherman Oakes, Calif.: Alfred Publishing Co.) 1980, p. 247
3/ Sayer, p. 248.

Gerry Paul graduated from the University of Arizona and qualifyed for the National Debate Tournament all four years in his collegiate career. He was named fourth speaker at the 1982 NDT. .