|
Because of the tremendous breadth of this year's topic, the 1992 DRG has
focused even more than ever on generic issues and on the negative. Our
objective has been to put the 3000 most useful cards we could find into
your hands. In line with this philosophy, we have made a conscious decision
to neglect case specific affirmative evidence. To partly offset this omission,
we have asked several of the DRG's research staff to offer their own insights
into how to debate the affirmative on this topic. Their discussion of
the cases that they would choose to run if they were debating the topic
themselves should offer some stimulating ideas for your own affirmative
research.
In a more theoretical
vein, I would like to offer a few comments on how in general one should
go about selecting an affirmative case. All too often debaters choose
a case because it seems (perhaps on the basis of only one article) like
a clever idea. This is not the approach best calculated to maximize affirmative
success. A case should be selected to best meet a whole range of strategic
considerations. Undertaking this process successfully may well make possible
one or two additional affirmative victories per tournament. There is no
science of case selection, no foolproof formula for victory. But there
is certainly an art involved, and careful employment of that art can pay
large competitive dividends. What follows, then, are some criteria which
should certainly be considered in selecting a case.
1. Topicality.
There are lots of ways to lose debates, but by running a clearly topical
case, you definitely minimize the risks from one source of defeat. Especially
on a topic as broad as this one, there seems to be little reason to
explore its defensible, but potentially judge-alienating, outer limits.
Of course, if you are a very good topicality debater, this concern is
less compelling.
2. An "angle" on the generics. Every good case has some strategy
for dealing with generic arguments. In approach (A), the affirmative
tries to avoid generic arguments. This kind of "link duck"
affirmative probably involves a small plan and relatively "non-tumable"
impacts. Its vulnerability, of course, is that any risk of a significant
disadvantage may well outweigh. Approach (B) could be labeled "turn
and burn." Here the affirmative tries to find a case for which
there are excellent link turns to the most common and obviousdis advantages.
Such a case can be especially deadly the first few times it is run.
Later on, the link turns themselves may be run at you, linking a disadvantage
with the opposite impact. In approach (C) the affirmative attempts to
dwarf (or at least outweigh) the generics which can be run against the
case. Having a good story for why your case outweighs is always valuable,
and such "big stick" affirmatives are especially effective
when the 2AR is adept at making weighing arguments. The danger, of course,
is that large significance cases tend to link to large significance
disadvantages.
3. Research advantage. To consistently win on the affirmative, you almost
always need to know more about your case than does the negative team.
One way of doing this is to select a relatively obscure case; the other
is to simply get deeper into the literature surrounding your case than
your opponents. Probably the most successful affirmatives are those
which you research in depth for all or most of the year. Commendable
as this may be, you do need to think realistically about your ability
to keep up with and out research your opponents on a big case like climate.
Also, you need to realistically assess your research resources. Having
access to specialized library collections can give you a big edge; you
certainly wouldn't want to run a case on which you lack access to much
of the best information.
4. Soundness as a public policy. Generic disadvantages are notorious
for being strung together, debate concoctions rather than realistic
public policy arguments. Sometimes affirmative cases display the same
flaw. With some judges, of course, how realistic your arguments are
may make little difference, but for some it will. In accord with this
principle, it's good to find a case with appealing value judgments.
A case to avoid overpopulation by starving people to death could claim
big impacts, but still would not be very strategically sound (not to
mention ethically suspect). Also, a plan for which there is some real
world experience has definite advantages. Its empirical solvency provides
a ready response to theoretical solvency arguments, and empirical freedom
from disadvantages can also be compelling.
5. Personal interest and belief. You can often be a more effective advocate
for a case you believe. You may also learn more by actually testing
your own beliefs in debate rounds. The danger is that too fervent a
commitment may make you relatively "tunnelvisioned" and insensitive
to opposing arguments. At minimum, though, you should select a case
which you find interesting; otherwise, your tens of hours of library
time figure to be pretty tedious.
6. Judge adaptability and appeal. It is, in the end, the judge who you're
trying to persuade, so audience analysis is an important part of case
selection. Judges, and judging circuits vary, with cases appropriate
to some situations less so in others. On some circuits policy realism
may be more important, on others, large impacts.
Many of these criteria
cut against each other, thus, there is no mechanistic formula for picking
a case. But these are all factors which merit consideration. They can
provide a mental (or even a literal) checklist, and any strategic coach
or debater will at least implicitly go through a process like the one
I've outlined here. At bottom line, a good case is one which lets you
beat people who are better than you are; it lessens the work involved
in in round debating. obtaining these kind of "good wins" is
one of the most gratifying parts of debate, and it is an experience which
those who choose their cases well encounter far more frequently. --RES
|