The Revitalization of the First Negative

Gus Ramsey & Spencer Zuzolo, Houston Baptist

1987 - Latin American Politics: The Calculus of Instability

The last five years has seen a virtual abandoning of the traditional first negative position. Too often today, first negative is utilized as a "stop-gap" speech, to allow the second negative to "'win the round." Having been trained in the traditional first negative role, taking the responsibility to eliminate the affirmative advantage (or advantages), we are concerned about the trend toward emaciation of first negative argumentation at both the college and high school level.

For the last two years we have attempted to utilize first negative in its more traditional mode. This seemingly radical (more truthfully, reactionary) departure from debate norms has been reasonably successful. We hope that with the publication of this article and the continued attention to the issue of first negative revitalization, this success will continue and perhaps even accelerate.

in this article we will analyze some of the problems of current first negative approaches (we are reluctant to call them strategies) and our proposed solutions. Finally, we will attempt to apply our solutions to the 1987-88 high school debate topic concerning Latin American political stability.

Current debate strategy usually calls for the first negative constructive to spew (at maximum volume and speed) several topicality violations, several conditional counterplans, a half dozen disadvantage shells, a few meaningless case presses, and (oh yeah) an occasional justification position. Rarely, if ever, does a first negative address the affirmative advantages in a meaningful way. The result is the diminution of first negative credibility and the abandonment of reasonable arguments by both sides in the debate (obviously, the affirmative team must prepared for the arguments they actually hear in a debate).

We believe it is wise for the negative to force affirmatives to actually research the implications of their case idea. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who knows more about an affirmative case than the affirmative team. The traditional first negative approach then, brings both teams back to what we call 'real world' arguments (by which we really just mean realistic arguments).

There are several do's and don'ts for first negatives who would like to see more real world debates (and yes, it appears to be the responsibility of the first negatives to bring us back from the brink of debate disaster). To begin with, the first negative speaker should never enter into the 'time suck' strategy. This strategy reduces the negative to a string of tenuous positions which leave judges looking for a way to vote affirmative (and justifiably so). The only apparent advantage of this dispersion strategy seems to be the fact that these arguments all apply equally well (equally poorly?) to a long list of affirmative case titles. The truth is that these tenuous positions are not effective research as some first negatives claim, but instead they represent a systematic refusal of negative teams to accept their natural burden of research.

Second, the 1NC should always remember that this speech IS NOT the launch platform for the 'invasion of my partner's disadvantages.' Starting disads in the first negative is an art (frequently abused) and the choice should be genuinely strategic in nature. Some disads warrant three negative speeches for adequate development, and some disads should legitimately belong to the first negative speaker. There is not yet any rule for debate that holds first negatives responsible for running "ballooned" by your overly aggressive partner, the initial presentation should include more than three pieces of evidence. You may actually use five to seven cards, and specific links to the affirmative case (always a lot to ask), may actually be used. It is also desirable to spend enough time explaining your positions to give the judge a chance to understand what you are saying.

Finally, the first negative should never intentionally mislead the other team by labeling arguments the opposite way or mumbling through link evidence. Surprisingly, we have even known nationally renowned debaters who have employed this pseudo-strategy. Even where persuasion is not a team's strength, clarity remains desirable. We admit that this approach allows your opposition to answer the arguments you advance, but we believe that smart teams never gamble that their opposition will make a mistake.

These examples of typical first negative abuses are merely mentioned to illustrate our contention that the first negative constructive has been emaciated to the point of irrelevance. Debaters should be cautioned (as judges and bewildered second affirmatives already know) that these are not the only abuses engaged in affirmatives by first negatives, but these do seem to be frequently used (and besides, they really burn us!).

THE PURPOSE OF FIRST NEGATIVE

Before examining the specific actions we undertake in our approach to first negative it is important to understand what A. Whitney Brown so eloquently describes as 'the big pictures We view the first negative constructive as an integral part of the entire negative position, not simply as an abbreviated version of the negative block. Team debate is exactly that: team debate. If half of the time allocated to a team is wasted, then the entire team suffers, not one speaker. We have, therefore, attempted to give substance to first negative constructive using this foundation.

At the risk of sounding like an excerpt from Sunday afternoon's 'Ninja Theater,' we believe that debate is a holistic activity, and the whole must be utilized in order to maximize the potential. We have no way of explaining how we debate within the parameters of this article, but we can list several salient features of our approach to the revitalized first negatives.

The first negative constructive is the lead-off batter for the status quo. We believe that, in this role, the first negative should have an excellent on-base-percentage. In debate terms, the first negative allows the introduction of argumentation that will win the debate round for the negative. In eight minutes severe damage can be done to the resolution and the affirmative's example concerning (however loosely) that resolution. Thus, pains should be taken by the negative to seriously consider the argumentation advanced in this speech. The negatives strongest positions should realistically appear here, if for no other reason than to give the affirmative fair warning (this is, perhaps, the only real defense against those 'cagey 2ARs). In short, first negative should be used to attempt to win the round immediately.

Secondly, first negative should be used to clash with the affirmative's case. We realize that this will be seen as dinosaur debate, but there is merit in this position. The affirmative team will usually use seven to seven and a half minutes or more to establish their case; there is no logical reason why this argumentation should be conceded to the affirmative by default. As mentioned above, the lack of case argumentation allows affirmative teams to offer sketchy and incomplete case analysis in anticipation of other arguments. These lazy affirmatives should be made to suffer for their shoddy efforts.

Some cases are bound to present the problem of debating without on-point evidence, but the average case contains enough internal flaws to roast it without documentation. Additionally, the problem is less often a lack of evidence on a given case than it is a failure of the negative to recognize how the case relates to evidence that IS in the negative files.

Special attention should be paid to the consistency between harm scenarios and solvency scenarios. Another area that is frequently ignored is that of inherency. Inherency is a tough issue to argue, but if a team becomes proficient at it they gain a scary weapon. Most debaters would be surprised at the number of (even good) judges who take the time in their philosophy statements to indicate their willingness to vote on inherency.

Even more important is the practice of evidence analysis. Affirmative teams frequently are more guilty of stretching evidence than the evil district attorney in some grade Z southern hick-flick about escaping from a chain gang. Just as you ridicule these movies (at three a.m.), you should advance the argument when the affirmative evidence does not meet the claim.

Coherent Positions are another component of our strategy. All too frequently a team will spew out positions in such a spurt that entire arguments disappear, only to re-emerge later as 'dropped.' This is debate by subterfuge (as Marty would say), not actual argumentation. A prime example of this type of argument is the high-speed topicality blip. Several one or two word standards are advanced, and then several undeveloped violations are offered. Similarly, counterplans, especially in the areas of competition and non-topicality, should be crystal clear. Theoretical positions should be carefully advanced (especially for counter-intuitive arguments--also a favorite of the shoddy first negative).

Still more important, perhaps, is the use of evaluative standards for stock issues such as significance, inherency, and solvency. The use of standards allows for the development of a coherent decision calculus which may simplify the judge's work.

Although our approach may sound like a condemnation of rapid delivery in debate rounds, it is instead intended as a critique of shoddy analysis. In fact, the faster a team is, the more coherent positions they are able to advance. We are always amazed when fast teams waste their linguistic advantage by devoting their efforts to poorly developed positions.

A fourth function of the first negative constructive is to set the tone for the round. If the first negative comes out swinging, then the affirmative team is put on the defensive. Negative teams should not be tentative; self-confidence is a virtue if not abused. First negatives should be masters of the use of sarcasm, but should be cautioned that effective sarcasm is merely a step removed from arrogance and rudeness. Humor is a powerful weapon in debate rounds, and should be utilized frequently. The point to remember is that humor is best used as a tension breaker, and not as a way to agitate the opposition. We try to relax in debate rounds, and usually this attitude will pass on to the judge (though not always to our benefit).' Tension surrounds life; there is no sense in making debate an extension of that tension.

The next area to be examined is perhaps the most obvious, but at the same timer the least often utilized. Effective debate requires effective listening. This is the initial requirement for flowing and understanding the affirmative case. Most teams are guilty of listening partially to the speech and simultaneously grabbing files, etc. This is somewhat unavoidable in may rounds, but the harmful effects can be limited if teams work together to listen and understand the initial affirmative argumentation. First negatives should also listen to the second negative constructive speech (and vice versa). Often, the second negatives, arguments can be advanced with careful extensions in the first negative rebuttal.

Finally, successful revitalization of first negative requires a great deal of effort outside of the debate round. Specific case argumentation requires constant and comprehensive research. Debate teams should plan on subletting part of the local library and moving in for the duration of the year. Even squads with one team can effectively research by concentrating on recent publications and drawing time-frame distinctions in the debate round. Evidence is helpful in demonstrating your knowledge about a case. Teams should know the assumptions inside and out. The negative team should know the assumptions made in their evidence, and how their argumentation allows for these assumptions. Knowledge of first negative positions and evidence also allows teams to avoid massive contradictions.

Negative should know their enemy. Know the affirmative case and, if possible, the team itself. Each debate team will have their own particular tricks on a case area, and usually these tricks will feed off of common negative positions. These tricks can be prevented by careful planning of first negative argumentation. We do not make the claim that effective first negative debating is the easiest approach. It probably is not. But we do feel that the work quickly justifies itself as you find that you are debating the best you can. Remember, hard work is good for you and it gets results.

MR. FIRST NEGATIVE GOES TO LATIN AMERICA

The broadness of this year's high school debate resolution mandates that negatives be proficient in arguing against any action which can result in political stability. Since writers on the topic of Latin America hold many divergent ideological views, it is possible to have many options to increase stability in one country alone. This diversity will give much more flexibility to smart affirmatives who can now run a case one way in a given round, then switch it around for the next time. The focus of the rest of this paper will be to apply the previous first negative strategies to cases concerning Latin America. The scenario we will analyze is based in Nicaragua.

This case area almost certainly has more relevant evidence than any other on this topic. Whether affirmatives argue that we should ban military intervention into Nicaragua, or that the United States should invade to foster politically stable democracy is irrelevant. Nicaraguan perceptions, actions and reactions are a key force in Latin America. Nicaragua's instability cut across the topic of political instability and flows freely into the areas of military instability and social unrest. The argumentation below will probably be run in some modified form but for now it will serve as an adequate example of arguing against this year's resolution.

This particular affirmative team has chosen to run a case that bans overt and covert destabilization methods against the Nicaraguan government. We will quickly run through the claims of the affirmative then analyze each section stopping to argue several traditional first negative positions ,on the way to the a big picture.

Initially, the affirmative argues that the Reagan Administration has engaged in systematic destabilization efforts in this country. They argue that President Reagan is committed to supporting the contras and to the destabilization of the Nicaraguan regime. They also argue that this only perpetuates a war of attrition and pushes the Nicaraguans further into the arms of the Soviets. Negatives should be wary, this type of position can be used effectively by affirmatives if left unchallenged, allowing them to claim a moral argument against prolonging an unjust war. Second, the affirmative argues that this policy is causing Nicaragua to become unstable and militaristic thereby threatening stability in the region and risking nuclear war. Third, the affirmative argues that absent these destabilizing forces the Sandinista regime will become a democratic and peaceful country. The affirmative smartly describes the Nicaraguan culture as being supportive of the Sandinistas and willing to insure peace in the region. Don't be surprised when you hear better evidence than these descriptions.

After listening to the evidence in the affirmative, a traditional first negative will look at the impacts presented and analyze how they can show that they will occur absent the affirmative plan, or are untrue with the affirmative plan. In this case the first thing that should be neutralized is the argument about how U.S. policy causes destabilization and escalation. If this position can be reduced to below the nuclear war level or even below the regional instability level negatives are doing a fine job.

Positions that reduce the credibility of this scenario come from the real world. First, are the Soviets really going to risk nuclear war in Central America? What would be their motive? Second, without Soviet involvement would the United States risk a nuclear war? Third, the negative can argue that policies against Nicaragua will never escalate because the administration would negotiate itself successfully out of the crisis. This position can easily be expanded in the second negative if you decide to argue that the U.S. position is strong enough to negotiate a more moderate and democratic government into power. This also gives a realistic look at why situations don't simply escalate into nuclear war. The fourth way to argue against the instability position is to say the alternative would be worse. In this instance, you initiate arguments that U.S. pressure is necessary to prevent the development of a more cancerous communist regime.

These positions are mutually supporting and also voting issues in their own right. If you lose the pressure to negotiate" position, the "puppet instability' argument is still applicable. If you lose both these positions, then the affirmative still has to overcome the escalation arguments to achieve their advantage. These arguments are called "brushfire" attacks. That is, they are arguments that are put out as simple positions that deny affirmative scenarios but, later become more significant when tied together properly. The point is you should let the affirmative mishandle the arguments then take advantage of that during the negative block (you are not 'intentionally misleading' them, merely inviting them to make simple mistakes).

Another area ripe for brushfire attacks is the solvency for this affirmative approach. First, a review of cultural determinants in Central America might show that the people in the neighboring countries of Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Guatemala may not agree with what the U.S. is negotiating away. These countries may perceive that the U.S. will no longer support them or represent their interests. These countries might then escalate the fighting on their own. This attack can do serious damage if the affirmative's evidence doesn't specify just who supports what changes. Second, the negative can argue that U.S. pressure causes the Soviet Union to aid Nicaragua without any return thus perpetuating its economic demise. This position not only supports the "Commie Creep" positions advanced earlier, but it can also be extended as a disadvantage stemming from the stalled social reform movement in the Soviet Union. Third, money and weapons from alternate suppliers could replace the U.S. support. This reduces solvency and can increase instability if the first negative would want to put out an inherency position that the present policy is best means to control inevitable aggression against the Sandinista government.

The last crucial area of discussion is inherency. Even if this isn't your favorite issue, attacking inherency and understanding how your opponent's answer interact with the rest of their case is important. In this instance, the affirmative claims a commitment to destabilize the Sandinistas as the goal of the status quo. The important thing here is to discover the intensity of support for this goal. Are supporters willing to attempt continued destabilization efforts through illegal means (there is evidence in the recent newspapers to suggest that this is the case). If they won't go that far, will the Reagan Administration simply shift its anti-communist focus to another region of the world and thus trade-off instability? These questions are relevant to the first negative, since they are the true links to negative disadvantages, and they are also not hidden by subterfuge (though the emphasis may mislead affirmatives who are only use to debating a series of irrelevant negative attacks).

This idea of showcasing positions gives the negative much more credibility in the rebuttals. When time is short, the 2NR can refer back to the unchanged position that has been argued (directly off of affirmative inherency) since first negative. Discovering the cause of a given problem is central to inherency argumentation. In many debates on a military topics a strong case for circumvention can be made by pointing to the presumptive force of the military industrial complex as mechanism.

All of these positions could easily be argued in five minutes of the first negative, allowing three full minutes to argue other issues such as topicality or counterplans. The disadvantages are placed directly off the case as inherency or solvency arguments, thus lending more credence to the idea that a coherent position is being formed to clash with the affirmative. The positions have come out of an analysis of real world motivations and probabilities. When this is done effectively most affirmatives will be overwhelmed and make a mistake that can be used for great advantage in the negative block. These negative strategies can be used in any style that exists and in fact they can be modified to enhance any team's best qualities.

SIDE NOTES

The simplicity of what has been described in this article overshadows the complexities involved in getting this process to work. Intense research and awareness of the issues in the real world are crucial to relating positions to fellow humans. But that is only one function of the traditional argumentation, the others are based on understanding the emotions and motivations of people advocating certain changes. This understanding is the key to life outside of debate (if that's possible) and holds in it the desire to educate the self through comparisons of different schools of knowledge. We advocate debate for its ability to foster creativity and the ability to express it in relation to others. We don't advocate isolating these issues only within the context of whether they make great evidence or not. Great evidence is one thing, but great evidence that is used effectively is something else again.