Politics disadvantages remain a popular tool in the negative’s arsenal since it uses the affirmatives inherency question as the starting point to ask the question: OK, what would happen if the improbable occurred and the affirmative’s fiat could overcome the status quo’s inherent barrier against the adoption of the plan?
When teaching and coaching debaters about politics disadvantages, I recommend keeping two things in mind. First, it is not the politics scenario that is unrealistic; the improbable event is the notion that the affirmative plan would ever be adopted given the current political climate. From this, debaters operate as political scientists analyzing what political ramifications would occur if fiat actually did occur. Second, the process of researching and understanding politics disadvantages achieves significant educational benefits, as debaters become experts on many of the current event issues of the day. Furthermore, debating the hypothetical circumstances inherent behind politics disadvantages places critical thinking skills at a premium. Because politics disadvantages are so reliant on up-to-the-moment evidence and understanding, successful politics debating begins the week before the next tournament.
The following are some guidelines that I have used over the years that I offer as some suggestions to consider in preparation.
WHERE TO RESEARCH POLITICS EVIDENCE AND SCENARIOS?
I am a big believer that good politics debating requires going where the evidence wants to take you. Initially, I try to avoid targeted searches on search engines like Lexis-Nexis as the research results are too tied to the effectiveness of the search terms that were used. Instead, I want to survey the political landscape to see what are the major issues and dynamics that are being discussed. This can be accomplished relatively easily. I make it a daily habit to scan the politics sections in major newspapers available online. For both diversity and quality of coverage, I choose these four newspapers to read: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. Except for the Wall Street Journal (which many school libraries subscribe to), all these newspapers can be accessed for free after registering with the site. Then, I scan headlines and look for agenda issues that may be ripe for developing a scenario. Remember, researchers should think as both a negative and an affirmative team. All potential agenda issues in Washington DC are potential negative political disadvantages, so it makes sense to acquire affirmative evidence to refute that possible scenario.
Anyone can engage this process. As a full-time debate coach, I make it a point to go through this process myself to direct my students for subsequent assignments. But, this could easily and effectively be an assignment for the debaters. An interesting idea is to assign each debater a particular newspaper to survey each day for potential political disadvantage scenarios. Finally, even coaches with limited debate experience can be highly successful in this phase. This is just simple social studies. If the headline in the New York Times is that “Bush plans on using his political capital to push for Social Security Privatization,” then this is obviously an issue that could be translated into debate rounds.
Once a survey of current events occurs, it is at this point where more directed search engine research (by coaches or students) would be effective. For the record, I find that this is often not a necessary requirement. While accessing the tremendous database from Lexis-Nexis may produce more or better cards, I find that much of that evidence is often similar to the original evidence obtained through those original surveys in those four newspapers.
WHAT TO LOOK FOR WHEN RESEARCHING?
The basic assumption behind most political disadvantages takes one of two forms.
- (1) Fiating the plan will stop the momentum for Agenda Issue X, and that Agenda Issue X would have been a good thing to get implemented.
(2) Fiating the plan will jumpstart momentum for Agenda Issue Y to get it over the hump to be implemented and Agenda Issue Y is a bad idea.
I think most people in our debate community assume that the process for how the affirmative plan would be implemented is determined by the most likely way it would come about if fiat were to magically happen. I suggest that the concept of “the most likely way the plan would come about” should be subject to debate using logic and evidence. Subsequently, the following are four things to look for when researching.
1. Identify current agenda issues. These are proposals that are currently “in play” which means there is momentum they will currently be implemented or that they could be implemented with a little nudging.
2.Identify the likelihood of the implementation of the agenda issue. This addresses the question of the uniqueness of the disadvantage. Newspaper accounts will often predict the current likelihood of passage of an issue as they describe the day-to-day contest between political rivals on an issue. While it is strategic to produce evidence that supports both sides of the uniqueness question, it makes sense to decide where the better evidence exists to assess potential negative scenarios. You don’t want to consistently lose uniqueness debates in practice because a poor argument choice was made. Furthermore, make sure to identify what political variables are necessary to either find that an agenda issue has been finally implemented or ultimately defeated. This dynamic will help construct the appropriate link argument. For example, if evidence suggests that Bush needs support from a few Democrats to implement his Tax Code reforms, then you need to construct a link story that targets these Democrats that may be on the fence.
3. Identify the appropriate and sensible link arguments. In general, conservatives and Republicans are wary of engaging the United Nations. Subsequently, most affirmative plans move against traditional Republican principles and embrace more traditional Democratic foreign policy initiatives. The following are some common (although not comprehensive) link arguments that can incorporate this basic assumption about the UN resolution.
- (A) Fiating the plan will stop the momentum for Agenda Issue X and that Agenda Issue X would have been a good thing to get implemented.
-Political Capital: Bush has to deploy political capital (pressuring of Senators, deal-making, threats, promises) to implement (or perhaps even block, but fiat ensures that Bush’s effort fails) the plan, this trades off with his ability to deploy the political capital that Bush is currently using to get Agenda Issue X passed. Bush’s political capital is finite and zero-sum; if he has to use it with the plan, there is not enough left over. This link will be very popular right now with Bush’s declaration that he acquired “political capital” when he was re-elected.
-Loser’s Lose: the implementation of the plan would be over Bush’s objections resulting in a political loss for his Presidency. Those in Congress no longer fear Presidents that are seen as losers. Politicians feel they can ignore the will of the President without negative repercussions.
-Public Popularity: the plan is unpopular with the public and the public blames the President since he is the most visible figure in the Government. This will lower Bush’s approval rating and those in Congress assess the strength of a President via their approval rating. Weak Presidents can be ignored without negative repercussions.
-Conservative Backlash: conservatives who distrust the United Nations were shocked and angry that Bush would betray their principles to implement the plan. Conservatives grow bitter and refuse to support Bush’s push for Agenda Issue X.
(B) Fiating the plan will jumpstart momentum for Agenda Issue Y to get it over the hump to be implemented and Agenda Issue Y is a bad idea.
-Olive Branch/Concessions to Democrats: Democrats like the plan, Bush’s implicit endorsement of the plan via fiat would be perceived as an olive branch for bipartisan goodwill across the aisle. Democrats would feel compelled, either in spirit or political reality, to return the favor by deciding to support Bush’s push for Agenda Issue Y. This link is most effective if it can be proven that Democrat support is essential for passage of Agenda Issue Y. This style of link should be popular since there is currently much discussion regarding Bush’s opportunity to genuinely achieve more bipartisanship to help him create a Presidential legacy. Also, the defeat of Senator Tom Daschle in South Dakota has sparked a debate within the Democrat Party as to whether working with or against the President is effective political strategy.
-Olive Branch/Concessions to Moderate Republicans: Moderate Republicans like the plan, Bush’s implicit endorsement of the plan via fiat would be perceived by them as an olive branch to the moderate wing of the Party and a signal that their views are still valued. This style of link should also be popular as there is much discussion as to whether the election results indicate that Bush will govern farther on the right – a move that may enrage moderate Republicans (many representing Northeast Blue States) and perhaps even cause party defections similar to Senator Jim Jeffords decision to become an Independent in protest over Bush in his first term. Again, this link is most effective if it can be proven that moderate Republican support is essential for passage of Agenda Issue Y.
-Public Popularity: the plan is popular with the public and the public credits the President since he is the most visible figure in the Government. This will improve Bush’s approval rating and those in Congress assess the strength of a President via their approval rating. Strong Presidents get their agenda implemented given the political risks to those in Congress that defy a popular President.
4. Identify the debate impact to Agenda Issue X or Y. Why is Agenda Issue X a good thing (and disastrous that the plan impeded its progress)? Why is Agenda Issue Y a bad thing (and disastrous that the plan jumpstarts its progress?) These impact issues are commonly discussed as opposing sides of the political fight provide warrants for their position.
From all this work, researchers should be in a very good position to assess and choose the best negative politics scenario to employ.
HOW TO ORGANIZE AND STRUCTURE THE WORK DURING THE WEEK?
Much of this depends on how large your debate team is. While a larger team provides the opportunity for deeper coverage, even one two-person team can successfully manage the preparation themselves for each tournament. Someone needs to be responsible for determining what politics scenario will be run on the negative for the next tournament. Someone needs to assess what are all the political disadvantages that may be deployed at the next tournament for affirmative debates. Potentially, this could be the same person who acquires this information in those formative survey phases of the process discussed earlier.
The next step is to assign specific research and block-writing responsibilities. At its most minimal, I recommend assigning the 2N the responsibility of the main negative politics disadvantage and assigning the 2A the responsibility for basic affirmative coverage against potential politics disadvantage scenarios. This division of labor is strategic as it makes sense for the 2A to be more familiar with 2AC answers and the 2NC more familiar with 2NR disadvantages and probably 2NC arguments. If there is a third researcher available, I recommend that this person focus on all the potential link work for both the affirmative and negative sides. Here are some examples: “No Internal Link: Democrats will never make concessions to Bush,” “Non Unique: Bush is already using political capital to push for a change in the tax code,” “Non Unique: Conservatives are already angry at Bush over his immigration reform plans.”
More available researchers could allow the team to divide these assignments up, particularly the assignment to develop affirmative answers against specific political scenarios. Maybe there are enough researchers to develop more than one political scenario on the negative? Many negative political disadvantage options are a potent force since they help ensure a quality politics disadvantage in almost all your debates.
I require a “morning-of-the-day-we-leave-for-the-tournament” deadline for all this work. Since recency of evidence is very important for winning uniqueness debates, I want to have a system that, within reason, produces the most recent evidence. I copy the evidence in that morning for each team debating that weekend. I require students to provide indexes for their work so the files are user friendly. I also require students to produce “Strategy Sheets” that are essentially descriptions of different arguments and argument tips. It is unreasonable to expect every member of the team to become experts in all these arguments. The idea of a team is that there is strength in numbers. To facilitate this end, I empower debaters to imagine that a teammate has only five minutes to look over a file. What should they know? What are the bare elements behind the argument? What advice would you offer your teammate? If these ideas can be addressed in a Strategy Sheet, then all the debaters will be in a better position to compete and succeed.
I have two remaining suggestions regarding scouting of politics scenarios. First, there are a few popular services that produce politics updates each week (www.planetdebate.com, www.cross-x.com). While you can decide for yourself if you would like to pay the money to subscribe to these services, both these sites provide a Table of Contents as advertising for their newest installment. These are usually available by midday on Thursday of each week. Perusing these Table of Contents is an easy way to scout what potential arguments are out there and may be deployed by other teams.
Second, it is important to conduct meetings for the purpose of intelligence sharing after tournaments. Sharing and compiling this information is a great way to assess research areas and needs for the next tournament. It may be a good idea to “borrow” these ideas for your team’s future political disadvantages. To quote Krusty the Clown: “If this is anyone but Steve Allen, you are stealing my bit.”
Ultimately, there are many different ways for teams to prepare for debating politics disadvantages. Coaches need to adapt to both the expectations of the debate circuits their school competes in as well as the size and experience level of the members of the team. These are some of the principles and guidelines I have incorporated over the years. Good luck.
This article is a reprint from the December 2004 NDCA Newsletter.
(Frank Seaver is Director of Debate at Woodward Academy in Atlanta, GA.)
