Nov-Dec

There’s a bottom-line issue with Nov-Dec. At some point, you have to argue that murder (i.e., use of deadly force) is justifiable under certain conditions. You also have to argue the conditions, but they are beside the point. A firm argument in favor of self-defense murder, or against self-defense murder, should be at the core of both sides.

Of course, the rounds may never get there, because of the conditions, which is the other facet of the rez. Aff must postulate that deadly force can be justifiable, and that these conditions justify it. That’s a two-pronger, no matter how you slice it. Neg can get off easy, and pick just one of the prongs. A really good neg will go for both; as always, the best neg contends an offensive position, not just a defensive position. Our discussions at our meeting last night, which were admitted preliminary, were nonetheless interesting. There is much work for the aff in demonstrating that the conditions can justify the action, but it can be done. The neg temptation will be to argue that, since other solutions are available, they preclude the alternative of force (much like weak Sept-Oct negs will argue that, since there’s other things the gov can do with its money that are better than spending it on HC, then the existence of alternatives somehow precludes the justice of that healthcare spending). This is problematic. Any situation that is debatable has alternative choices of action; the fact that there are alternatives doesn’t seem to be much of an argument against selecting any one particular course of action; the existence of alternatives is an inherent requirement of debatability. In Nov-Dec, of course, since the action we are criticizing is the most violent, at least you can throw that extremism into the mix, but still, you ought to do better than that.

It’s just me, though. I hate weak negatives. Given that there is usually a whole raft of strong negative positions available on any resolution, and that the stronger the neg position it, the larger the burden that is put on the aff, I am always puzzled by the negs who “just say no,” who don’t uphold a position of their own but simply argue that there’s something wrong with the affirmative position. Talk about unconvincing. I want a choice between two sides, not a choice of one side or not that side. But, I am talking to the wall here. Only great debaters are willing to stand for offensive positions on both sides of a rez, at least if you define great debate as a clash of opposing sides. And how many rounds actually have any clash in them, anyhow?

If you aren’t clashing, you aren’t debating. Don’t try to pretend otherwise. Don’t duck the resolution. Argue the damned thing for once, will you?