Mike Hancock, Emory University

1983 - American Justice : Courting Disaster

First negative is probably the least glamorous speaking Position. The first negative speaker is the first debater to finish speaking. He may be all but forgotten by the judge by the end of the round. With increasing frequency, I find debates are being decided on issues to which the first negative never even referred. If he had debated, Rodney Dangerfield would have been a first negative. At the same time, first negative provides a unique challenge for debaters to think fast and create argumentative grounds from the opposition's arguments. Perhaps by examining the details of the speaker position and attempting to perform its duties more effectively, first negatives can better meet that challenge and find for themselves importance and respect.

I claim no knowledge of the "correct" way to do first negative. I am certain that some would disagree with some of the suggestions I have. The thoughts I offer are merely the product of one person's experience at the position for the past eight years. I do not recommend that a reader blindly follow these instructions. Rather, I hope that interested readers will think about, and maybe even talk to coaches and fellow debaters about, the ideas discussed here in order to decide what is most appropriate for them.

All first negative argument choices should be influenced by team strategy. In anticipation Of expected cases, negative teams should discuss and decide what arguments each will run. Even after such decisions, however, first negatives must still decide how to present the appointed arguments. Moreover, in some cases the negative team will be surprised by an affirmative case and will be forced to argue with a minimum of team discussion. Therefore, argument choices are specific to given rounds but techniques recommended here are almost universal.

I will be assuming here that the first negative will be dealing with the case arguments. This assumption is not intended as an endorsement of the-approach. Switching negative speaker Positions or responsibilities can be an effective strategy. 'Such a move should not be made, however, without consulting your coach and carefully considering the ramifications. For the purposes of this discussion, I will address the traditional first negative responsibility of answering case structure.

First negatives can approach their duties with a number of objectives in mind. Three very broad aims of a first negative speaker are to prevent insurmountable affirmative significance, to use as little preparation time as possible, and to attempt to win a voting issue. These goals show first negative to be a basically defensive position. A first negative wants to keep the affirmative advantage small enough to be outweighed by a disadvantage without taking precious preparation time away from the second negative rebuttalist. If the first negative wins a voting issue, then all the better.

An effective first negative constructive begins with the first affirmative constructive. The most important thing a first negative can do is to listen carefully to the 1AC. It seems simplistic to point out that one cannot answer a person's argument without listening to it first. Yet this basic concept is ignored by many debaters. First negatives must resist the temptation to accede to the pressures of preparation at the expense of listening.

As you listen, think about potential grounds for argumentation. If you already have an idea of your attack, think about how each affirmative argument or piece of evidence affects that attack. If you think of an argument that you want to argue against an affirmative point at the same place on the flow as the affirmative point is given, you should try to go ahead and write it down on your flow. If you think of a position you might want to run elsewhere or a question you want your partner to ask in cross-examination, jot it down on a piece of scratch paper that you have ready for the purpose. During all of this time, continue to listen attentively to first affirmative. The ability to learn how to listen and work at the same time is of immeasurable value to a first negative.

One practice that helps you to listen attentively is to take a careful flow of the first affirmative constructive evidence. A good first negative should try to get down the source, date and important text of the card. This will not only help you to formulate arguments but will allow you to guide the judge during your speech by referring to the source and text of a particular card. Writing down a brief outline of the plan is another effective listening aid. All first negatives should listen carefully to the plan as it may significantly affect many first negative arguments

As first affirmative ends, you should tell your partner if you have any questions you need for him to ask in cross-ex or if you need him to get some part of the first affirmative for your reference. Cross-examination is your preparation time. You should concentrate on working first and listening second. Judicious use of these three minutes can keep you from having to use any of your team's allotted preparation time. I have found that this time is much more critical before the second negative rebuttal. while you should not stand up for first negative constructive before you are ready, every effort should be made to be ready as quickly as possible.

The best way to reduce the amount of preparation time used in the round is to prepare prior to the debate. You should review the flows (or tapes) of as many cases that you regularly hear as possible. Think, discuss, research and ask questions to yourself and others in an attempt to gain an understanding of the best way to attack each case. Preparing your arguments to match the specific structure of cases can be extremely effective but you must listen carefully so as not to be embarrassed by a slight but significant change in structure.

When giving their constructive, first negatives should say something about each subpoint of the affirmative case. If the subpoint actually proves your position you may want to grant it. If the subpoint helps the affirmative you will obviously want to argue against it. If, however, you can not discern how the subpoint is relevant to either position, you may want to simply say so instead of automatically contradicting it. You may choose to group certain subpoints because you will deal with them iii the same way but you should state clearly that you are doing so. Making sure that each subpoint is explicitly dealt with during your speech helps to insure that you do not miss an important affirmative argument and avoids the displeasure of hearing second affirmative rave about the way you "dropped" arguments.

In consultation with your partner you may choose to let him cover a certain subpoint in his constructive. This practice is especially useful if the subpoint deals directly with a second negative disadvantage or plan-meet-need. Also, if you run out of time in first negative constructive before covering all of case, it may be better to ask your partner to cover it in his constructive than to allow the affirmative to carry the point intact throughout the debate.

If an affirmative claims to have multiple independent advantages, it is important for you to balance your attack so that each advantage is attacked in relation to its importance. For example, if the affirmative has two advantages of roughly equal significance, then you should attack each with roughly equal vigor. If, on the other hand, one affirmative advantage carries much more significance than the other, you would want to spend most of your effort on the larger advantage. Moreover, if independent advantages are claimed by the affirmative, it may be wise to contemplate whether the advantages are truly independent. If you can think of reasons why beating one advantage precludes or weakens the other(s), then your rebuttal position will be significantly strengthened.

One concept that I feel compelled to stress when speaking of first negative involves the refusal to accept the opposition's labels. Since debaters write labels but not evidence, the labels are usually much better than the evidence that follows them. One of the key functions of a first negative should be to keep the affirmative honest. Try to avoid debating the labels of the affirmative subpoint without checking to see whether the claims of the label are truly supported by the evidence following it. The exception to this practice is when the affirmative overclaim actually feeds your position. In such cases, you would want to grant the label even if it was never proven.

When challenging an affirmative subpoint, it is crucial to differentiate between your evidence and the affirmative evidence. I have seen many first negatives respond to evidence that claims that courts are slow, for example, by reading evidence that says courts are fast. The judge is left with contradictory evidence and no attempt by the debater to resolve the impasse. Before reading your evidence which contradicts the affirmative subpoint, you should first present arguments that explain why the affirmative evidence could have reached an errant conclusion.

In many cases it is desirable to answer the affirmative subpoint card by card. This is especially useful if the subpoint is the critical issue in the round and/or will be resolved by a comparison of opposing evidence. Such an approach requires, of course, that you have a good flow of the case evidence. There are a number of ways one can find fault with evidence. If the evidence involves a study, one can challenge the methodology on a number of levels. If the evidence is couched in terms of possibilities ("maybe"s), this can be pointed out along with a demand that this probability be assessed in some manner that can be weighed by the judge. If affirmative solvency evidence states that the affirmative change is necessary to solve the problem, the first negative should be ready to indicate that the plan may not be sufficient to achieve solvency. Date comparisons and source indictments are but two more of the inexhaustible means by which to attack evidence presented.

Such a detailed attack is not always needed or desired. A talent that first negatives can refine through experience is that of knowing what to attack and what not to. I always feel that you should attack a case at its logically weakest point. Almost all cases are deficient in a particular area or we probably would have already taken the affirmative's advice. Some might feel that this must be the area the affirmative is most prepared on. I feel you owe it to yourself to challenge the affirmative to produce answers to an attack to its weakest flank. If the case is truly not topical, truly not inherent or truly not solvent, push the obvious arguments.

One category of arguments that must always be carefully considered for attack is that of decision rules. Affirmatives may seek to establish certain criteria for the judge to use when voting. If the affirmative does this, you should first think about whether the standard helps you, hurts you or, perhaps, has no significant affect on the round at all. If the affirmative rule simply plays into your hands, you will, of course, want to use it against them. If it seems to be meaningless, you can ignore it and spend your time elsewhere. If, however, the rule appears to give the affirmative a strategic advantage you must strongly challenge it right away. Think about whether the standard is fair, if it gives the affirmative an unreasonable advantage, if it is theoretically sound, or if it ignores critical factors that should be weighed in the decision. The decision rule you accept in constructives will have to be lived with, often at your peril, in rebuttals.

Goals are a specific type of voting criteria that are likely to appear often on this year's topic. The debates about the criminal justice system often reduce to a weighing of the rights of individuals versus the protection of society. I would anticipate that many affirmatives will advance concepts such as these and claim that any movement toward achievement of the goal must be voted for. You should be prepared to debate the competing goals involved in criminal justice. If a goal is advocated, you should first consider whether the negative team's approach actually serves the goal better than the affirmative. if so, you can use the affirmative goal to prove the superiority of your position. If such is not the case, you must challenge the validity of the goal in deciding court policies. You may argue that a mutually exclusive goal is superior or that, at least, consideration of other goals in concert with the affirmative's makes for superior decision-making. An important argument is that the affirmative must still produce a significant advantage, i.e. a significant advance towards the goal, to justify action.

This leads us into another critical area of first negative argumentation, especially on this topic. Many judges are increasingly willing to vote for cases with very tiny advantages if there is nothing to weigh against it. The first negative may be able to reduce case significance to almost nothing and the negative may still lose the debate if they do not win a disadvantage. This is likely to be common under this topic since the topic does not require a significant change and the policy area is not one that suggests a lot of case areas with big significance. A first negative who can win a position that claims affirmatives must meet minimum levels of significance can be very valuable.

Although many means can be used to justify significance standards, including an appeal to prima facie standards, I feel one of the most productive ways is through presumption. Presumption is an argument that I think negatives should explicitly argue more often. You should first establish that presumption is negative. Reasons for negative presumption include traditional debate practice, balancing side advantages, affirmative burden of proof, and risk of change. These are general arguments for presumption but the most effective presumption arguments are those that are more specific to the affirmative case. On this topic a valuable avenue may be to develop a position, with evidence, that presumption lies heavily with the courts. Judges are experienced in understanding the impacts of court procedures, they examine their decisions at greater length and in greater detail than is possible in a debate round, and their decisions are constantly being reviewed and reexamined. In addition, many of our court procedures have been around for a long time. The impact of these presumption arguments is that a change in court procedures might be undesirable in ways that the debaters have not considered and that, absent a significant advantage to doing so, we should not change from the present system. Moreover, the larger the change, the greater the advantage needed to justify the move.

A strong first negative constructive makes a strong first negative rebuttal much easier, l and a strong first negative position round after round can turn an average negative team into a very good negative team. The keys to giving a strong first negative constructive will always be good advance preparation and strong concentration that will allow you to listen, process, and think of strategies and arguments quickly. Let the second negative have plenty of time to prepare his speech; the greater challenge can be found in the scramble to get a handle on a case before it gets its grip on you. The satisfaction obtained from winning the struggle is ample reward for the effort.

1/ For material on negative rebuttals, refer to Chuck Ballingall, "Negative Rebuttals," ARMS SALES: THE POLITICS OF DESTRUCTION, Allan D. Louden and Roger Solt, editors, (Winston-Salem, N.C.: Debater's Research Guide), 1982, pp 2l-25.

MIKE HANCOCK debated for four years at Emory University, qualifying three times for the National Debate Tournament and twice participating in elimination rounds.