If you compete in debate, the chances are good that at some point you’ll have to argue for something you disagree with. Whether you realize your case is based on an assumption you hadn’t thought about or it’s in the resolution itself, it’s pretty much inevitable.
When this situation comes up, it can be difficult, confusing, and tiring. How do you defend your position without betraying your beliefs or making yourself look bad? Luckily, most resolutions aren’t so one-sided that this becomes impossible, but some seem to come close…
Let me give you an example, this year’s 2022-23 NCFCA LD resolution is no different: The individual right to property ought to be valued above the economic interests of the community. Sounds like the battle for the ages. Capitalism vs. Communism, Liberty vs. Equality, Conservative vs. Liberal, the list goes on and on.
At first glance, it might seem impossible to defend (and win on) the negative side. You’re going to have a hard time coming up with compelling arguments that will seriously convince the judge of the merits of the negative side. And after doing a bit of research into some common arguments for the negative side, you might conclude it’s impossible.
But I’m here to tell you it isn’t.
Today we’re looking at 3 ways you can defend a position that you and/or your judge might disagree with. Some of these ideas are specific to Lincoln-Douglas debate so if you’re in Team Policy then I’m sorry but I guess you have no choice now but to switch to LD.
Anyway, let’s jump into the first point.
Ideas vs. People
A lot of times we associate ideas with the people or group that hold them, especially when they’re of a political or philosophical nature. In real life there’s no problem with that. We train our brains to recognize patterns and that’s how we learn. If someone holds belief X then it’s statistically more likely they will also have belief Y. This allows us to get a better understanding of situations as fast as possible, and as long as we recognize that these patterns aren’t absolute, there is nothing wrong with this approach.
However, in debate you don’t decide what you’re defending. In other words, there’s no reason to believe that because a debater is making a certain claim about an issue, they’re also going to agree with other beliefs that are also held by the real-life proponents of these ideas. As such, we have to separate these ideas from the general ideologies to a degree and simply focus on which side of the resolution ought to be valued highest.
As an example, just because a negative speaker this year has todefend valuing the economic interest of the community over the individual’s right to property, that doesn’t mean the next step will be 90% income tax for anyone making over a million dollars or taxpayer-funded “free” healthcare. Sure, in real life some people that argue for one argue for the other, but that’s just not the case in debate. Debate the ideas, not the people that hold them.
Value vs. Policy
This is one of the reasons that LD is super cool in my opinion. (TP people, if you’re still here you might like this!) We aren’t arguing about what should be signed into law or what should be changed in the current system. In other words, you can value something without any political ramifications.
For instance, if I’m on the negative side, that doesn’t mean that I have to be in favor of any policy that is intended to promote the economic interest of the community, such as a universal basic income. I might not believe that this would actually help the community, or I might believe it’s not worth it because of the floodgates that would open for other laws to be put in place.
However, on the flipside, I might encourage individuals giving away their wealth to help the poor in the community because that’s actually valuing the community over the right to property. Now I know there are arguments to be made about whether someone giving up property is actually an infringement on the right, but I’m not getting into that right now. Believe me, I’ve heard it all before.
The point is that no one’s forcing you to say yes to every policy that attempts to uphold your side, and you can still promote your position based on what ought to be valued highest. For instance, I personally believe that we should all value Christian ideals and live in a way that reflects that, but I don’t believe there should be government-mandated religion. Values and policies can be vastly different things.
Alternative Case Structures
If you still aren’t satisfied with these first two points, here’s another one for you. Nobody ever said you had to run a typical negative case where you promote the economic interest of the community over the right to property. If you look closely at the resolution, it says the right to property should be valued higher, and as the negative all you have to do is prove that it doesn’t.
That’s right, all you have to prove to win the round is that the right to property shouldn’t be held above the economic interest of the community. If you can show that, then you win the round.
There are multiple ways to do this but, I’ll quickly run through the three most interesting ones.
Situational – If we vote affirmative, we are “locking in” our opinion, so to speak, that the right to property is more important. However, we can vote negative and keep our options open. We don’t have to set rules for situations that are complex and variable. Instead, we should embrace a more flexible approach that allows us to make decisions as they come up.
Balanced Negative – We should value both sides equally. This breaks down in situations of conflict, but if you can show that there isn’t conflict in the context, you’re arguing then it can work. For instance, if valuing property rights is the best way to uphold the economy, then we don’t need to make a choice and can value both.
Resolutional Objection – Not only shouldn’t we affirm the resolution, but it’s impossible to affirm it. An example of this would be that we can’t value property rights above the economy because one is a result of the other. That would be like valuing a toaster over the toast itself. They’re dependent on each other for their value.
Whatever way you choose to argue the resolution, you have options. Explore what alternatives you have and come up with a case that suits your needs and understanding of the resolution.
Hopefully this helped some of you better understand the resolution and how to promote a position you disagree with. Maybe you were already asking yourself some of these questions because you weren’t sure how to argue the negative side this year.
If so, then great! If not, then hopefully this helped you understand how some people might be approaching the resolution. In any case, I hope you learned something new and are now better equipped to prepare for an amazing year of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Remember, Lasting Impact! has their LD Guide, go to the SHOP and get yours today.
Bio: Peter competed in NCFCA for 4 years during high school and was a nationally ranked speaker and Lincoln-Douglas debater. Since his second year in the league, he has coached his debate club as well as private students one-on-one in various speech events and LD debate. Many of his students have succeeded at the regional and national level and across multiple leagues. He is now attending Missouri University of Science and Technology, where he is pursuing a degree in Aerospace Engineering. Feel free to contact Peter at montgmery.pfa@gmail.com