Digging Into The Debate Theory Archives is a series highlighting “old” debate theory articles that are particularly thought-provoking, influential, or illuminating and that active debate students would benefit from reading.
When reading old(er) debate theory scholarship, one immediately notices the ubiquity of labels and jargon. This kind of specialized language has been common in debate for a long time, but it is interesting how many previously-ubiquitous terms have completely fallen out of the debate lexicon. Sometimes, this is for the best; older terms can become outdated because of changes in popular debate practices. But other times, I think we would benefit from revisiting and rejuvenating old terms.
One example of the latter is the distinction between negative case and plan arguments. This distinction between “case side” and “plan side” used to be an important part of the “Debate 101” curriculum. Negative debaters were taught that case responses minimized or disproved the harms, significance, and inherency of the affirmative’s case while plan responses minimized or disproved the affirmative plan’s workability and solvency and identified disadvantages to its adoption.
For many years, this distinction even determined the negative’s basic speaking responsibilities. At first, the first negative debated the case and the second negative debated the plan. Later — thanks to the “Emory Switch” — the first negative debated the plan and the second negative debated the case. Eventually, these negative responsibilities were combined. In modern debate, both the first and second negative debaters address both the case and the plan.
Even though negative speaking responsibilities are no longer derived from the “case side vs. plan side” distinction, I still think it is a helpful way to conceptualize negative arguments. Many judges bemoan the infrequency and ineffectiveness of negative case debating, and for good reason. In many rounds, “case debating” amounts to a few impact defense cards and perhaps a circumvention argument; nearly all of the negative’s time is spent arguing off-case positions.
Rejuvenating the case vs. plan distinction might help — especially because what we call “case debating” is really a combination of case-side and plan-side arguments. To most effectively respond to an affirmative’s case, the negative needs to dispute both its case for change and its proposal for change. Reducing case debating to impact defense and reducing plan debating to disadvantages and counterplans misses important opportunities to develop more persuasive negative strategies.
For students that have never learned the case vs. plan distinction before, Michael Pfau’s “A Systematic Approach to Opposing Policy Change” provides a useful guide. In it, Pfau explains the basics of workability arguments, solvency arguments, and disadvantages — the three pillars of “plan side” negative debating.
In particular, Pfau explains the concept of the PMN — or “Plan Meets Need.” PMNs (or PMAs — “Plan Meets Advantage”) are important negative arguments, but the label has fallen out of fashion. Understanding the purpose of the argument and the different ways it can be presented can help negatives craft more persuasive answers to affirmative advantages.
The full text of Pfau’s article is available below.
Pfau, Michael. “A Systematic Approach to Opposing Policy Change.” Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching, Third Edition, edited by David A. Thomas and Jack Hart, National Textbook Company, 1989, pp. 39-45.
This essay assumes that in a typical debate, the advocates of a policy change are the affirmative team. Keep in mind that a negative counter plan is also a proposal for change. All of the strategies and tactics described here apply to the affirmative’s attacks on a negative counterplan.
There are two general functions of arguments in opposition to a policy change. First is the process of diminishing affirmative case significance. Straight refutation, counter-causality analysis, extra-topicality charges, and support of present system mechanisms which are designed either to treat the effects of the problem or eradicate it out-right—these and additional strategies are all geared toward this basic function. This process continues in the introduction of plan-meet-need or plan-accrue-advantage arguments. If we characterize competitive debate in the terms of the policymaker critic, then the import of negative efforts to diminish affirmative significance becomes apparent. The policymaker tends to evaluate a debate in terms of the following basic equation: the net need or advantage is greater or less than the net disadvantage. If we were to expand this simplified equation, it would read as follows:
Aggregate advantage minus negative minimization minus present system mechanisms to mitigate the harms minus present system mechanisms to promote solvency minus extratopicality impact minus net plan-meet-advantage plus [end page 39] disadvantage turnaround impact is greater or less than net negative disadvantages.
Generally, negative tactics are geared toward diminishing the left side of this equation via all available means. In most rounds, however, the negative fails to reduce the left side of the equation to zero. In the end, some affirmative significance remains in spite of negative efforts.
Thus, the second general function of the negative is to establish a countervailing environment to offset whatever remains of affirmative significance. It is the negative chance to put something on the right side of the equation to offset net affirmative significance. To achieve this end, the negative strives to establish a counterbalancing value system which is the foundation for truly effective disadvantage argumentation. This concept is developed in some detail later in this essay.
Workability Arguments
Workability arguments concern themselves with the mechanics of an affirmative plan. Although now such attacks are categorized under the heading of plan-meet-need or plan-accrue-advantage argumentation, they warrant consideration in their own right. Good workability arguments can be most damaging; mediocre ones are an absolute waste of time.
In considering workability attacks the negative debater should consider some of the following areas. First, mechanical and administrative deficiencies: Does the affirmative plan provide for sufficient administrative personnel; adequate expertise; a viable revenue source; etc.? Second, enforcement must be scrutinized with great care. Utilizing the affirmative plan and the cross-examination periods as vehicles for information, the negative must make an accurate accounting of the means by which the affirmative seeks to secure adequate enforcement. With that information in hand the negative can accurately appraise the viability of possible workability attacks which zero in on affirmative enforcement. Remember also that the extent of enforcement is dependent upon both the total sweep of the affirmative’s change and the nature of the affirmative’s inherency which must be circumvented via the plan. Make sure that the enforcement provisions are sufficient to overcome the inherencies (both structural and attitudinal) which are developed in the affirmative case.
Finally, find out whether the affirmative plan has any precedents — successful or not. This is an important area for negative research and subsequent argument development. If a particular plan has successful precedents, then the affirmative should be loaded for bear with documented answers to most negative plan attacks. Conversely, if a plan has been tried and failed, then the negative can turn to a tremendous store of specific information to use in documenting plan attacks. Either way, a consideration of plan precedents is crucial. [end page 40]
Solvency Arguments
Plan-meet-need (PMN) or plan-meet-advantage (PMA) arguments measure the capability of the affirmative plan to mitigate the harms presented in the debate. Such attacks continue the process of diminishing affirmative significance—thus further reducing the left side of the debate equation. Yet, while most PMNS are designed to diminish affirmative significance, the absolute PMN goes even further. This rare, but potent, argument absolutely precludes affirmative solvency—at any level; it reduces the left side of the debate equation to zero. At this point (barring any turnaround of negative disadvantages) the debate is over.
PMNS come in one of four basic designs. The negative should consider each design as he scrutinizes the affirmative proposal. Each entails a mode of analysis—a way of looking at an affirmative plan.
The first design concerns alternative causality analysis. The negative seeks to demonstrate that the affirmative mechanism fails to eradicate important cause(s) of the problem in question. Naturally, if significant causal factors escape the purview of the affirmative plan, then the harm impact will continue to manifest itself in the post-plan environment. Most affirmative analysis is prone to this variant of PMN as a result of oversimplification. The important economic, political, and social problems of our time involve speculative, and multiple causation. Yet, debate procedures mandate the identification of a limited number of causes which are capable of solution via a relatively simple plan mechanism. Unfortunately, any effort to simplify a complex problem in such a manner is suspect. The negative debater should identify the alternative causal variables and demonstrate the impact of each upon the affirmative harm. Ideally the negative will want to place the affirmative in the position of mitigating only insignificant causal factors—thus failing to produce even modest PMN.
A second design involves the impact of future causes. This is a rare, but often telling, mode of PMN analysis. Using this method, the negative argues that the affirmative’s causality analysis is shortsighted; that it is limited to the present time frame; that it ignores the emergence of new and significant causal factors in the future. Hence, the affirmative at some future point in time will cease to achieve PMN. The affirmative impact is thus a limited, short-term phenomenon.
Circumvention, the third mode of analysis, invokes maximum “real world” appeal and is popular with a wide spectrum of judges. Here the negative argues that attitudes and/or structures (often the same one identified in the affirmative inherency analysis) will thwart the affirmative plan. It is a shortsighted affirmative inherency analysis which gives fruition to the circumvention argument in the first place. Affirmatives are too often prone to indictments of present system structures which ignore underlying attitudes. This misperception is simple: it is based on the naive notion that structures exist in a vacuum. This is clearly not the case; it is the presence of attitudes which [end page 41] make possible the emergence and development of structures. In developing the circumvention attack the negative argues that, while the power of fiat might overcome existing structural barriers, the underlying attitudes remain unchanged and will manifest themselves in new ways in the post-plan environment. The net result is the utilization of different structures to undermine the affirmative plan; hence, substantially diminished affirmative PMN.
The negative must accomplish three tasks in developing a good circumvention argument. First, demonstrate the motive. Sometimes this will be provided by the affirmative team. In most cases, however, it is the negative that must offer the analysis and evidence to establish motive. Second, detail the means of circumvention. That is, given the presence of the motive, in what manner will it manifest itself? What mechanisms are operable as channels to thwart the affirmative plan? This step is important and often makes or breaks the circumvention argument. Third, demonstrate the impact of the circumvention on affirmative solvency. The negative constructive speaker who completes each of these tasks has a damaging PMN to launch against an affirmative.
A fourth design is the PMN-Disadvantage. This amalgamation of two plan attack variants is a potent strategy. Essentially, the PMN-Disadvantage is a hybrid; a disadvantage which manifests impact in terms of the affirmative harm criteria. It argues that the affirmative plan exacerbates the very ills which it seeks to eradicate. This mode of attack is most damaging in that it facilitates a comparison of like evils; the standard disadvantage involves a comparison of unlike harms.
When using any of the above PMN arguments, the negative should consider a number of PMN suggestions. First, PMNS do not have to be unique; applicable only to the affirmative plan mechanism. However, this does not give the negative carte blanche to advocate contradictory policy positions with respect to inherency and PMN. PMNS which generically mitigate solvency—of both present system and affirmative alternatives—are obviously applicable to both sectors. A negative team cannot expect to carry mutually exclusive positions in the debate. Thus, while the negative is free to develop an “if . . . then” policy position (ie., the present system can solve; if it can’t, then neither can the affirmative plan), it should reasonably expect to carry only one of the two positions. In this instance the PMN takes precedence. If solvency is precluded generically, then present system alternatives will fail.
Second, PMNS should have a perceptible impact on the affirmative case. What is the impact of the PMN on the debate equation? This must be articulated clearly to the judge. Third, PMNS should utilize independent argument construction where possible. The affirmative should be unable to group negative PMNS. Finally, the label of the PMN should reflect its impact. The argument’s label is much more important than most debaters realize since it is often the only thing that the judge follows. Hence, the negative should utilize PMN attack labels which reflect the nature of the argument and its impact.
To this point the negative has worked for a common objective: diminishing [end page 42] the left side of the debate equation. Now it is up to the negative to establish a countervailing environment to offset whatever remains of affirmative significance. The negative must provide the most important category of negative argumentation: disadvantages.
Disadvantages
Disadvantages concern the negative impact of an affirmative plan; the consequences of a course of action. Until this point the affirmative is in the most enviable position of a mythological bearer of gifts—a policymaking Santa Claus—bestowing positive impact oblivious to any other consequences. The disadvantage sector brings the debate back to the real world where the basic principle of scarcity prevails. Scarcity precludes policymaking omnipotence; it presupposes the need to make hard choices. As such, it mandates that there can be no positive impact without negative impact; no benefits without costs; no “free lunch.” The negative must develop the most undesirable set of plan consequences possible for a particular affirmative approach.
Two basic assumptions about negative disadvantages must be understood. First, disadvantages entail the same burdens as an affirmative case. They must be significant in extent and severity; and they must be unique to the affirmative proposal. Second, disadvantages often stem from the abandonment of a previously held value position. The negative must think in terms of value hierarchies (continuums which represent diametrically opposed value positions). Fundamental societal values often conflict, and we must elevate some basic values over others regarding specific policy issues at particular points in time. Place the diametrically opposed values on a hierarchy in terms of the following policy questions: which value does society promote on an a priori basis? Human life or individual freedom? Relate the value conflict in terms of the existing policy controversies over seat belt usage; abortion; gun control, and others. Or, apply the same process to the value controversy over the right to security versus individual freedom. Relate this value conflict in terms of the draft; bail; investigatory agencies, and more. Simply put, policy questions usually involve values in conflict. All affirmative plans alter value hierarchies—affirmative benefits stem from the accelerated promotion of one or more basic values at the expense of others. Sometimes the affirmative takes a value position and argues it outright; usually the mandate is subtle. The negative must be prepared to deal with values—to think in terms of value positions. Movement on a continuum toward a desirable value represents the simultaneous movement away from an equally desirable value. Just as affirmative advantages stem from movement along a value continuum, so do negative disadvantages. In short, any attempt to assign different priorities to basic values produces both good and evil results. The negative must be prepared to deal with the latter. [end page 43]
Disadvantage attacks may stem from one of three basic phenomena. First, some disadvantages are generic to the adoption of the resolution itself, regardless of the specific affirmative approach. In this instance, the basic value presupposition of the resolution serves as the basis for the negative attack. For example, in 1977 the colleges debated the question, “Resolved: that the Federal Government should significantly strengthen the guarantee of consumer product safety required of manufacturers in the U.S.” In this case, the value presupposition is that the affirmative approach should involve the federal government in enhancing consumer protection. No matter what particular approach the affirmative chooses, it must embody this essential thrust. Thus, the negative can develop disadvantages which are generic to the resolution itself, such as centralization.
Second, some disadvantages result from the movement toward solvency and their impact is proportional or inverse depending on the nature of the specific argument. If the evil results from maximum PMN, then the disadvantage gains momentum to that point. If the disadvantage harm stems from the vacuum created from the point of affirmative fiat to maximum PMN, then its impact dissipates during that interim. This latter development is especially effective if the negative can demonstrate that full PMN will never be attained.
Third, other disadvantages stem from the implementation of the affirmative’s mechanism per se. The impact of this variant is immediate upon the affirmative fiat. If affirmative harms or solvency are future oriented, then this mode of plan consequence is especially valuable since it enables the negative to compound the harm of the disadvantage. In this instance the affirmative benefit is delayed; but the consequences are immediate. A compounding must be utilized in order to achieve an accurate comparison of policy positions.
Strategic Consideration
We have thus far attempted to offer a process which might assist the negative in acquiring a perspective, or way of thinking. We have suggested specific modes of thought in developing negative observations, workability arguments, PMNs, and disadvantage attacks. Now we must consider strategic considerations—an integral facet of a negative perspective.
Under certain circumstances the negative might develop a uniqueness block. If, for example, the affirmative’s change is minimal and its impact is slight, then the potential for damaging negative disadvantages is proportionately reduced. Here the uniqueness block makes sense. The coordinated negative strategy requires the negative to combine generic inherency attacks concerning the viability of existing structures with straight refutation of the affirmative’s inherency analysis. This approach calls for the negative to develop a series of existing structures, minor repairs, and/or [end page 44] conditional counterplans (in any combination) to promote the net result advocated by the affirmative. There are four steps involved in implementing the uniqueness block. First, the presentation of an overview concerning the nature of the affirmative’s burden. The negative articulates the position that an affirmative approach must represent the most effective means to achieve a particular result; that the negative will offer alternative means to promote the affirmative’s objective. The result is an affirmative alternative which is not unique and may not be the most desirable policy position in the debate. Second, delineate the alternative mechanism(s). Third, demonstrate efficaciousness. And, fourth, show the desirability of the negative’s alternative. This represents a viable strategy under such conditions as noted above.
Another, and most vital, negative strategy involves tactics to limit plan flexibility. All too often negative debaters allow affirmative plans to undergo slight modification during the debate round. The consequence is substantial: the emasculation of viable plan attacks. A number of preventive steps must be taken. First, if any feature of the affirmative’s plan is unclear, pin it down in the cross-examination periods. Second, if uncertain about some feature of the plan, request to see the affirmative’s draft. And third, if the affirmative’s plan is intentionally vague, take an overt tactical approach. For example, it has grown increasingly popular to utilize an “optimal mix of finance mechanisms.” This is designed to preempt negative disadvantages concerning the plan’s financing—often the most valid “real world” attacks. The negative can, and must, pin the affirmative down to a specific formula. It can do so via cross-examination probes designed to ascertain what mix would be utilized in the face of specific economic conditions—present or future. If the affirmative declines to commit themselves to a designated mix under specific conditions, then the negative must be prepared to demonstrate what mix would be used according to a consensus of expert opinion of economic policymakers. Either way, the negative can tactically pin down the elusive affirmative and then launch the appropriate plan attacks.
A final strategic consideration involves the use of so-called affirmative “guarantees.” Here the negative constructive speaker must insure against unreasonable affirmative claims. In short, the negative must not permit the guarantee to become associated with the totality of the affirmative position. Instead, the negative must pin it down to a specific sector.
A perspective, or way of thinking, in approaching the negative is a prerequisite to its success. This chapter has attempted to provide a process, or mode, which might be utilized in an effort to acquire such a perspective. The thought process used to develop various plan attack variants and to devise an effective strategy must be internalized by the second negative. This important first step, coupled with creativity, extensive preparation, and effective application, should result in exciting and effective second negative constructive speeches.
Michael W. Pfau is Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at Augustana College (Sioux Falls, SD).