John Mark Gidley, University of Kansas

1983 - American Justice : Courting Disaster

First affirmative rebuttal is the speech for the affirmative which keeps the debate alive. The purpose of 1AR is to answer enough of the arguments from the negative block to give the second affirmative rebuttalist the opportunity to win. The 1AR seeks to minimize the damage which twelve minutes of unanswered negative arguments have produced. The arguments which are potential debate "winners" for the negative must be recognized and neutralized by the 1AR. The answers which are "winners" for the affirmative must be presented clearly, yet hopefully not made too obvious. In short, the 1AR avoids losing, while sowing the seeds for eventual victory.

This essay will provide an outline of potential 1AR arguments which are used. None of what follows is meant to be the last word on 1AR strategy. What will work for you will vary from round to round. The following are merely some suggestions which mimic the arguments that others have made.

PLAN-SIDE ARGUMENTS

Traditionally, the second negative constructive presents plan arguments, while the first negative constructive presents case arguments. This division of labor means that most second affirmative constructives answer case arguments. Consequently, the plan arguments are often answered for the first time in the 1AR. Given this, the 1AR should usually start on the plan arguments when presenting his or her arguments. As no time has been spent on these arguments by the affirmative, it is crucial for the affirmative to present answers to these plan-side arguments as soon as possible.

For the purpose of this essay, plan-side arguments refer to those arguments which are new in the 2NC. They may include some case observations or topicality arguments, but they are predominately composed of solvency and disadvantage arguments. The 1AR should begin on these new arguments first, covering the caseside arguments toward the end of the 1AR speech.

The 1AR should usually proceed in order through the 2NC arguments. Each argument should be grouped together and answered as a whole. For example, rather than answer each subpoint of a disadvantage, it is almost always better to answer the disadvantage as a whole given the time limits of the 1AR, there is never enough time to answer the specifics of each negative argument. Of course, there are exceptions to this general guideline. Should the 2NC be an exceptionally crafty individual, it is quite possible that he or she will choose to hide a topicality argument in the structure of the disadvantage. This topicality argument actually may be quite independent of the disadvantage. It is hidden by the 2NC in the hopes that the 1AR will skip it. If this happens, several short but adequate answers should be made across from the topicality argument, after the general answers to the disadvantage are given. Similarly, small disadvantages may be hidden in larger disadvantages for the same purpose as the topicality argument above. Again, the 1AR should give general answers to the 1ARger disadvantage, then proceed to answer the smaller disadvantage separately. Another exception to this rule is the case of a second negative whose only argument or whose maid argument is one 1ARge disadvantage. If a 1ARge amount of time is invested by the 2NC on one disadvantage, it may make sense to give general answers and then answer some specific subpoints of the disadvantage. Generally, the L~R will wish to make the debate simpler for everyone involved by grouping together each negative argument from the 2NC. This has the benefit of conserving speaking time as well as making the speech clearer for the critic.

Any case observations which appear in the 2NC should be handled quickly. It is generally a wise practice to refer to 2AC arguments when answering any case arguments which were presented in the 2NC. These should be answered with a minimum of answers and with a minimum of explanation. These arguments for the most part already have been debated throughout the constructives. They usually are not the most threatening negative arguments.

Of the arguments the 1AR faces, the 2NC disadvantages usually pose the greatest threat to an affirmative victory. Fortunately, there are several conventional answers to disadvantages from which the affirmative is able to choose. A few examples of these are given below.

One common answer to disadvantages is the uniqueness answer. These arguments suggest that the disadvantage is occurring now. Under both the present system and the plan the disadvantage will occur. Since both systems incur the disadvantage, its consideration is unimportant to the choice between alternative policies. These arguments are especially true of "rights" disadvantages, where a fundamental procedural right or constitutional right is claimed to be infringed by the plan. Since a majority of the Supreme Court has never held any right to be absolute, there are a number of exceptions which exist in the rights which we now enjoy. Despite the First Amendment to the Constitution, the press does not have full access to defense secrets or all legal proceedings nor is it free to publish libelous statements. In short, all of the rights which we possess are somewhat relative, with none held as absolute.

A second and closely related argument is that the disadvantage is empirically denied. This argument strikes at the truth of the relationship asserted by the disadvantage. It argues that policies which are similar to the affirmative have been adopted previously, without triggering the impact of the disadvantage. The disadvantage has been observed to be false. For example, if the negative claims that the affirmative plan will weaken the First Amendment, and lead to the eventual loss of American democracy, the affirmative might wish to point out that many recent judicial holdings have weakened the guarantees implicit in the Constitution. Despite these numerous rulings, democracy has remained intact. Thus, the disadvantage is said to have been empirically denied. These arguments often are used in tandem with uniqueness arguments. As the First Amendment disadvantage example illustrates, the past intrusions on the First Amendment which make the disadvantage nonunique, also prove that intrusions do not result in the loss of democracy.

A third type of answer to disadvantages may be termed as "take-out" responses. These are those arguments which either directly dispute the truth of the disadvantage's causation or which argue that the effect of the plan will offset any detrimental impact. An example of a take-out response would be the use by an affirmative which argued for the abolition of the death penalty of Sellin's research which concludes that the death penalty doesn't deter homicide. This takes out the disadvantage that abolition of capital punishment would increase homicides.

A fourth answer frequently heard is that the plan's advantages will outweigh the disadvantage. The argument here is that eyen if the disadvantage is true, the case advantage is still larger than the entire impact of the disadvantage. As this is often apparent, this answer is often a waste of precious 1AR time. It is far better for the 1AR to cover the plan and the case and let the 2AR explain this if necessary.

A fifth answer which is sometimes made is that the disadvantage is not intrinsic to the resolution. This argument is implicitly a hypothesis-testing argument which asserts that the truth of the resolution is not denied by the disadvantage. For example, while the courts may be overloaded as a result of the plan, there is no reason why policymakers could not build more courts and appoint more judges. Unfortunately this answer is not seen by many debate judges to be sufficient. The disadvantage is intrinsic to the plan, which is the germane policy example. l10reover, the argument implicitly assumes some rationality of current policy makers who were earlier in the debate unable to see the wisdom of the affirmative plan. For this reason, this answer is not the best for most critics.

The final category of answers is that of disadvantage turnarounds. These arguments are the 1AR's best friend. The power of a turnaround is that the turn sends the argument against the negative team. A strong disadvantage when turned around, becomes a strong disadvantage to present policy. The turnaround suggests that either the link or impact of the original disadvantage is incorrect. The negative has to asserted a relationship 180 degrees from reality. This argument is obviously extremely powerful. Ordinarily, the 1AR should develop turnarounds to all disadvantages presented in the 2NC if this is possible and consistent.

There are two types of turnarounds, link turns and impact turns. A link turnaround turns the link of the disadvantage. If the disadvantage asserts that the plan causes crime which is harmful, a link turn would argue that the plan prevents some crime which exists now. Since crime has been argued to be harmful by the 2NC, the disadvantage is turned around. The link turnaround argues that the link to the disadvantage is backwards, but that the impact is true. Conversely, an impact turnaround asserts that the link evidence is correct as presented in the 2NC, but that the impact is actually a blessing in disguise. For example, the crime disadvantage mentioned above might be turned by evidence which indicated that crime is good (perhaps it employs the unemployable). Another example of an impact turnaround would be the argument that court crowding is actually good, since a congested court system may attract public attention to the criminal justice system. If the courts became more crowded, policymakers might initiate sweeping reforms with which they otherwise might not concern themselves.

The affirmative is free to make more than one turnaround per disadvantage, and indeed this is generally encouraged. It must be remembered that these turnarounds must be consistent both with each other and with the case arguments. To advance two or more inconsistent turnarounds is know as "double-turning" a disadvantage and is to be assiduously avoided. A double turn can save the day for an otherwise poorly prepared negative team. A double turn gives the 2NR speaker the ability to grant both turnarounds, which is often extremely unpleasant. Double turns are nothing short of disastrous.

Perhaps the most common double turnaround is the mixing of link and impact turns. For example, against a court crowding disadvantage, if the 1AR were to argue both that the plan decreased court overcrowding (a link turn) and that court overcrowding was good (an impact--turn), the 1AR would have double turned the disadvantage. The 2NR will agree with both arguments, namely that the affirmative decreases something (court overcrowding) which is good, The affirmative has won one argument too many. Either turn alone would have been strategic. The mixing of the turns is disastrous. This tragedy can be avoided by not mixing link and impact turns.

This is not to say that the 1AR is limited to a speech of all link turns or all impact turns depending on the disadvantages advanced, a 1AR could for instance argue link turns against two disadvantages and impact turns on the third. What is important is that the overall combination of turnarounds is consistent. The 1AR can not argue that the plan decreases crime against disadvantage one and that crime is good against disadvantage three. The 2NR can still grant both turns, as they are totally inconsistent. Turnarounds then require a good bit of premeditation on the part of the affirmative. They should be selected on the basis it of the quality and quantity of the evidence in available. If a team has two weak cards for the crime-is-good position, but nineteen strong cards on the plan-decreases-crime position, it is safe to assume the plan-decreases-crime link turnaround is the better turn to choose when debating an increase-in-crime disadvantage. Turnarounds should also be selected on the basis of consistency with the case and other turnarounds. The best turnaround in the world is useless if it contradicts the 1AC solvency evidence.

The other common case of double-turning can occur when multiple turns of the same type are advanced which are themselves inconsistent. For link turns, it would be extremely inconsistent to claim that the plan both increases n crime and decreases crime. This is likely to be detected rather quickly by both teams. More common is the case of inconsistent impact turns. An example may help illustrate this mistake. The second negative claims that the plan will increase prison overcrowding, which will result in worsened prison conditions for inmates. 1AR might respond that prison overcrowding will I benefit younger criminals and aid their rehabilitation as crowded prisons will force the courts and prisons to release more of the younger convicts on parole and probation. The 1AR would claim that parole and probation are superior to prison for young convicts as prisons are "schools of crime". Young inmates learn criminal techniques from other inmates during incarceration. The effect would be to decrease crime. Later, the same absent-minded 1AR might forget this turn and claim that crime is good. The 1AR is left in the untenable position of decreasing something (crime) which is good. He or she will probably pay the price.

While utilizing turns, it is often a sound practice to make other answers in combination with the turns. This is especially true if the affirmative is not certain of the strength of its turnaround evidence. If the turns are not felt to be sufficient, other answers should be made. Moreover, if the turns are strong, this fact may wish to be camouflaged until 2AR by making other responses to the disadvantage. These other answers however may come at the cost of the turned disadvantage. If the 1AR argues that the plan decreases crime (a link turn) and that crime is not harmful, the 2NR is free to grant both positions and concentrate on his or her other arguments. This does mean of course that the 2NC's crime disadvantage is now neutralized, and the 2NC must find other arguments on which to win. Only if the affirmative desires to win only on the turnaround in a debate should they be presented without other answers (e.g. take outs or other answers). A notable exception to this rule of thumb are uniqueness answers. If the affirmative claims in response to a rights disadvantage which claims that rights will vanish, both that rights are hurt now and that the affirmative restores rights, the arguments are consistent. Uniqueness arguments are almost always consistent with link turnarounds. The uniqueness argument merely proves that the disadvantage occurs in the present system. The link turnaround solves this disadvantage in the present system.

These then are the basic plan-side answers or 1AR. They should be incorporated into blocks for each disadvantage with the affirmative can anticipate. The blocks should prioritize the ordering of the 1AR answers, so that important answers are made even if the 1AR misallocates time. The blocks can be practiced to help increase speed and c1ARity and also save valuable prep time.

CASE-SIDE ARGUMENTS

Case side arguments must also be extended in the 1AR. Since the 1AC and 2AC have usually spent the bulk of their time developing case issues, 1AR should spend much less time on case. The goal of the 1AR is to keep the case alive, without sacrificing plan coverage.

As the plan arguments are covered first, the 1AR should end his or her speech on case. It is not possible to answer all of the case arguments, argument by argument. Rather, the 1AR must group negative arguments on a specific issue and extend those arguments which resolve the issue in the affirmative's favor. For example, on harm arguments this might involve arguing that the affirmative position represents the consensus view in the field or that affirmative studies do not suffer from the flaws negative studies suffer. On inherency, the 1AR must extend at least one indictment of current structures, preferably more. On solvency, at least some detectable level of solvency should be defended. In short, the 1AR must end with a prima facie case possessing a significant and inherent harm which is at least partially ameliorated by the plan. For the case to have importance, the essentials of the case need to be presented.

If a case issue is extremely important, 1AR should spend some extra time answering the specific negative extensions or making several good general arguments. This might include reading evidence on the case, which generally should be done only when the 1AR is confident that this will not" sacrifice coverage of the rest of case. Examples of arguments which merit close scrutiny are case-side topicality arguments, case-side disadvantages and any other argument which is claimed as absolute. These arguments must be covered in time by the 1AR to prevent losing.

An extraordinary type of argument for the 1AR is the recent phenomena of "ballooned" disadvantages. These are disadvantages which are presented in skeletal form in the INC and expanded or "ballooned" by the 2NC. This strategy has met with great success in debate recently, in large part due to the incompetence of the 1AR. The strategy of ballooning disadvantages is to put great time pressure on the 1AR. The 2NC is able to focus on each specific response of the 2AC, reading evidence on the specific answers which the affirmative highlights.

The 1AR is not powerless in dealing with this tactic. To cope with ballooned disadvantages, the 1AR should spend a good portion of his or her speech on the disadvantage. The exact amount of time will depend on the length and adequacy of the 2NC coverage. It may make the most sense to cover the ballooned disadvantage before covering the other plan-side arguments, or between the plan and the original case, to ensure adequate coverage.

In answering a ballooned disadvantage, the 1AR should extend the important answers to the disadvantage, especially any turnarounds which seem to be faring well. If the turns are doing well, these may be the only answers chosen to be extended. If the disadvantage is close, more answers must be extended. Of course, only extending the turnarounds may expose the final 2AR position in the debate too early in the debate. Hence, even if the turns are sufficient, it may be desirable to extend other answers as a smoke screen.

1AR must also concentrate on not wasting time in answering the ballooned disadvantage answers. Grouping similar answers is one way to avoid over-answering these disadvantages. There is no reason to extend all of the 2AC answers. Furthermore, important answers should be evidenced again in the 1AR for emphasis, if possible and if appropriate. Reading another card bolsters the argument as well as guaranteeing the judge sufficient pen-time to write down the, answer. If a particular disadvantage seems particularly amenable to ballooning, the best, cards should be saved for the 1AR and 2AR speeches. Indeed, it may be wise to have a specific set of 2AC blocks for ballooned disadvantages which use the relatively weaker answer cards. These blocks could be backed up by extension blocks for the 1AR and 2AR. This practice has strategic value as well as the benefit of minimizing prep time.

Finally, the 1AR need not feel compelled to follow the 1AC case outline to the letter when covering the case-side arguments. There is nothing about the 1AC case structure that makes it intrinsically sacrosanct. If the second of three advantages is the most important, then the 1AR should extend it first and then proceed to the other advantages. If the solvency contention is particularly troublesome, it may make sense to cover that contention first and then return to the top of the case structure. This is not to say that the 1AR should be unorganized or should scatter all the arguments. 1AR should recognize that nontraditional coverage of the case may lose even the best flow judges, especially without precise signposting. Any extraordinary ordering of coverage should be explained before the 1AR to the judge and the negative team if this is allowed. If you are uncertain as to the effect that nontraditional coverage will have on the judge, it is safest to cover the case arguments in the 1AC order.

Regardless of the specific tactics selected by the 1AR, he or she must cover the important issues in time. The means by which this is accomplished are not as important as avoiding confusing the judge. Debate needn't be pretty, especially in the 1AR; rather it should be clear.