This past week, I had the privilege of judging multiple LD rounds at an NCFCA tournament. I saw some stellar cases and strong argumentation, but I also noticed a disturbing trend: many students seem confident and put-together when they affirm the resolution. They can articulate a strong philosophical case for private property rights, complete with appeals to social contract theory and natural rights. However, when it comes to the negative side, many cases seem far less polished. Students struggle to come up with a philosophical justification for the economic interests of the community. They let many affirmative points slide, uncontested. They often look uncomfortable.
I understand the reasons. As conservative debaters, we tend to favor property rights. Speaking to conservative judges, we know they favor property rights, too. And because of our own biases, it’s easy to overlook the genuinely legitimate reasons why the economic interests of the community are important.
Here’s my case for a stronger negative defense. I firmly believe that you don’t have to go full-out Marxist to go negative! Instead, a little creative thinking might just go a long way to improving your confidence on negative. Here are a few of my tips to get you thinking about how to strengthen your neg case.
Tip #1: Consider non-governmental actors
In every single round I judged, aff either explicitly stated or assumed a governmental actor. Every neg let this statement pass uncontested. This stance automatically gives aff an advantage, as they can point to scary ideas like “governmental redistribution of wealth” and “Communism in the Soviet Union” – ideas that frighten judges. Aff justifies this actor by claiming something like “the government is the only entity capable of taking away rights,” or “capable of making rules.” You don’t have to go along with it! The resolution does not specify an actor, only a values discussion. Consider the many types of communities, outside of the government, that can serve as great examples for this resolution.
A homeowner’s association, for instance, is a nongovernmental entity that imposes certain limitations on people’s property rights to protect the economic interests of the neighborhood. It’s a great example of social contract theory at work: people give up certain rights (parking all their trashiest cars on the lawn, trimming shrubs every other summer), to enjoy the economic advantages of higher property values and a pleasant neighborhood. By bringing up such a nongovernmental example, you can move aff to the defensive: with their stance, homeowner’s associations should be abolished, as they prioritize the economic interests of the community over the rights of the homeowner to control the property as he or she sees fit!
Tip #2: Embrace social contract theory
Many affs that I judged mentioned social contract theory at some point in the round–either as a supplement, or as the mainstay of their case. According to a certain version of the theory, this makes sense: as aff explained it, social contract theory means that people give up certain rights to protect other rights: most notably, the right to property. This gives aff a tremendous amount of moral high ground. After specifying a government actor, they can conclude that the negative position undermines the very purpose of government by devaluing property rights!
The problem with this approach: aff is focusing on a very narrow version of the social contract theory. According to John Locke, this argument is correct. However, consider two other fathers of social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Both of these men agreed that people give up certain rights under a government. However, they argued that the benefits people receive in exchange are far more than a simplistic protection of property. Instead, people receive a host of economic benefits like security, acquisition of wealth, and other material advantages. According to Hobbes and Rousseau, the main purpose of government is not to protect basic rights like private property, but to promote human flourishing. The ideal government transformed people’s existence from the “nasty, brutish and short” lives they would have had under what Hobbes called the ‘state of nature” (or anarchy). In order to get these benefits, people have to give up elements of many rights they enjoyed previously. In fact, Rousseau saw a government that prioritized the protection of property rights as inherently unequal, because it protected the rights of the few at the expense of the many.
As a negative debater, how can you leverage Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s theory of the social contract? Point to real life. Locke envisioned a society in which governments mostly just protect natural rights. In pretty much every government ever, governments do much more. They build roads (often infringing on property rights to do so), raise taxes, provide public services, defend the nation, and much more. While some of these functions are related to protecting rights, others are simply economic benefits: like infrastructure. In fact, building roads is a great example of why Hobbes and Rousseau might be more compelling: in this instance, many people lose certain elements of their property rights so that the area can have a working road. Would the judge really prefer a Lockian interpretation of the social contract, where the building and maintaining of roads is dependant on a myriad of fickle individuals? Probably not.
The bottom line? Don’t let aff scare you away from social contract theory! There is a robust neg argument to be made here, if you know where to look.
Tip #3: Don’t defend socialism (unless you want to)
A common theme that ran through many aff applications was socialism. Whether it’s Soviet Russia or Mao’s China, it seems popular for aff to turn to examples of wealth redistribution and communal farming as proof that the economic interest of the community must be secondary. As neg, do you have to mount a defense of these atrocities? Absolutely not.
Remember, the resolution pits the individual right to property against the economic interest of the community, NOT the interests of the top ten people in power! In almost all historical examples of socialism, you can point to two things.
- The actions of the government were clearly not in the economic interests of the larger community. Widespread famines that kill millions of workers and constant purges by secret police, combined with a general lack of incentive to work, are not ingredients for large scale economic success. If this is an example of the economic interests of the community, why isn’t the community faring a little better?
- If these actions were in the economic interests of anyone (which is questionable), they were in the interests of the top few governmental leaders as they sought to maintain power. In fact, this was almost certainly the motivation of most socialist governments. Aside from a few idealists like Lenin, I doubt that very many prime ministers or supreme leaders actually believed that mass purges would benefit the general economy. Instead, they benefitted the few. This is not a true example of the community’s economic interest being prioritized or benefitted in any meaningful way.
In sum, don’t feel the need to defend whatever socialist example aff brings up if you don’t want to! Point out the flaws inherent in the example, and move on to more reasonable applications of the resolution.
Arguing against private property rights in a conservative league can feel like an uphill battle. That doesn’t mean you should give up! Don’t be afraid to think outside the box, or feel cornered into defending ideas that you strongly disagree with. There are plenty of great reasons to value the economic interests of the community, and they don’t all involve an appeal to The Communist Manifesto!
– Honor is one of our Lasting Impact! Coaches, if you appreciate what she says or want to hear more, contact us and schedule a coaching session! One of the unique things about Lasting Impact! is that all of our coaches are ACTIVELY involved with Speech and Debate! We coach, teach, lead clubs, even participate at tournaments, whether that’s coordinating, taking on staff positions, or judging! We love coming alongside students, parents, coaches, and clubs! Schedule a coaching call today!