Cashing In: Economic Affirmatives and Surprise Strategies

Introduction

My first impression of this topic is likely the one shared by most debaters who have researched the topic: economics flows negative. The ground for the negative is certainly diverse, but it appears that the core negative ground is economic in nature.

I found it hard not to let that impression gel. Debaters often find themselves falling prey to what coach Scott Philips terms “rigid style.” Philips notes that for one reason or another, debaters often make unstrategic assumptions about the limits and potential for argument in debate. He advocates instead for “debate Jeet Kun Do”, and has a pretty interesting application of the martial arts philosophy to debate strategy and selection. In honor of Bruce Lee and recognition of Scott Philips, this post will apply “debate Jeet Kun Do” to the September/October Public Forum debate topic and advocate for economics affirmatives.

This post does not advocate for affirmative debaters to have an economics contention – it advocates for writing an entire affirmative case focused on nothing but economics. Debaters lose strategic opportunities when they treat ground as static based on their intuition on the topic. This rigid style is unstrategic because it misses potential win opportunities with arguments that will surprise opponents but jive with judges.

Debaters have a tendency to under-prepare positions they do not expect. Debaters on the negative very well may assume that because the topical economics literature is skewed negative, affirmative debaters will run from it. Rigid style. Nor is negative evidence on economics sufficient to refute affirmative economic claims; for example, negative evidence indicating that “stadiums are too expensive” does not refute evidence that stadiums bring higher levels of tourism or increase local consumer spending.

Smart affirmative debaters can then prepare for the main warrants supporting the negative economic position. This leaves affirmative debaters at a comparative advantage against negatives who under-prepare answers to affirmative economics arguments because they assume that they can simply rely on their case.

Acknowledging Realities...

First things firstⁱ - it is worth acknowledging that the literature is overwhelming negative. That fact is exactly why the affirmative should front the economics argument and attempt to get ahead of it. Avoiding the question of economics on the affirmative will not prevent negative debaters from reading economics arguments – it just puts affirmatives another step behind in answering them.

...Mitigating Factors...

Two factors limit the applied strategic value of the negative literature advantage.

The first factor which limits strategic use of negative economic literature is the lay nature of Public Forum Debate. Because Public Forum is judged prominently by lay judges even at the highest levels of competition, it structurally favors intuitive arguments that are likely to resonate with the general population. On this topic, the best negative arguments are highly theoretical, complicated, or academic arguments that require moderate to substantial background knowledge and terminology. Negative debaters presenting complex (and often mixed) statistical findings regarding the role of leakage in hurting local community growth must first explain:

1. What leakage is
2. Why leakage matters
3. How the affirmative causes leakage
4. Why that leakage outweighs affirmative economic arguments.

Even after such an explanation, judges may wonder how leakage is measured, whether such measures are reliable measure, and how leakage affects the average consumer. Other negative economic warrants are similarly disconnected from judges and the knowledge of the average citizen.

In contrast, most affirmative economics are intuitive, simple, and popular in American political discourse on economics. Nearly every judge will be familiar with “consumer spending”, both because it is a simple concept and because it features heavily in public discussions of growth, spending, and fiscal planning. For that reason, the average judge will also have an understanding of its normative significance.

In other words, debaters need not win “consumer spending” is good or “small business health” is important, because such normative positions are so thoroughly engrained in the fabric of American culture. Similar affirmative warrants (“more tourism!”; “more businesses!”; “more investment!”) are heavily discussed and part of the common knowledge of most Americans. They are therefore more likely to resonate with judges, which makes them intuitively more appealing. In a world where both economic stories are similarly articulated by debaters of similar skill levels, that intuition may be sufficient to tip the scales in favor of the affirmative.

A second major limit to the strategic value of the negative literature dominance is the limited time for speaking in Public Forum. This is a necessary corollary of the effect created by lay judging in Public Forum Debate – the best arguments are those which can be explained quickly. Complicated negative arguments require more time to explain and defend than intuitive affirmative arguments. The best negative literature is dense and time-consuming to explain, as are the refutations of the affirmative literature. Though ostensibly correct, these factors make that literature hard to articulate and deploy in debate rounds. With many of these arguments off the table, the negative is substantially more vulnerable to economic arguments than they first appear.

…and Advantages

Confronting the economics question head on affords the affirmative another benefit: diminishing judge subjectivity. As noted in a previous post [link to framework post], many debates on this topic will boil down to framework debates. These debates involve persuading a judge that a particular value system is proper for evaluating the impacts in the round. Unfortunately, because they are fundamentally subjective questions of value, there is no clear answer to framework debates. As a result, debates which focus on framework have an inextricable element of uncertainty – debaters simply have to hope the judge is willing to agree to the value system they propose.

The problem of subjectivity is especially pronounced on the September/October 2014 sports topic because the framework systems are so disconnected. Affirmative debaters who read stock affirmative arguments about civic pride and community cohesion take a high risk: they must hope that judges are willing to make a value judgment about abstract concepts like “pride,” and that the judgment is favorable even when pitted against taxpayerⁱⁱ pocketbooks. Because almost all judges are taxpayers but only some are sports fans, this puts the affirmative at a preemptory disadvantage. Rather than succumbing to this disadvantage, affirmatives should invest time in establishing a robust defense of economics arguments from the start.

Affirmative economics arguments are also advantageous insofar as they mitigate negative time investment in framework arguments. Negatives who correctly believe that most debates on this topic will boil down to framework will spend substantial time justifying economic impacts as the default framework for the judge. When the affirmative agrees to an economic framework – and then attempts to win within it –the negative time investment in framework becomes a waste. When the framework is uncontested, time spent winning the nature of the framework fails to advantage the negative over the affirmative. In an event where four minute speeches are the maximum, every second of time tradeoff matters. Wasting thirty seconds of an opponent’s case can be the difference between a win and a loss.

Envisioning the Affirmative

An affirmative taking advantage of this particular strategic opportunity will be best served when it is structured to tell a coherent narrative. While this is generally important, it is especially true with this strategy because this strategy relies on superior explanation and logic to distinguish itself from the dense, statistical negative. I imagine an affirmative case with two contentions. The first contention should assert that public funding for sports organizations supports several factors in economic growth. The second contention should hedge against negative economic arguments by asserting the importance of the economic factors identified by the affirmative (e.g. “small businesses are the most important factor in growth”; “consumer spending outweighs”, etc).

The first contention should be structured heavily with subpoints. This keeps each warrant logically separated, which both increases the likelihood that the judge will retain them and that you can track warrants which your opponent drops. Each subpoint should correspond to a single warrant, and should be given a catchy one-to-two word label. Terms like “Subpoint A:Investment Signal”; “Tourist Attraction”; “Job Creation”; “Small Business” help signpost the case and increase argument salience in the mind of the judge.

The second contention should attempt to contextualize the relationship between each warrant with broader economic outcomes for the community at large. In constructing this section, debaters should balance two concerns: first, which economic indicators matter the most? Second, which economic indicators will most likely catch judge attention? Evidence indicating that public funding for professional sports increases per capita consumer income by $2,000 is an immensely relatable impact. Debaters can capitalize on that relatability in their cases directly by breaking the fourth wall – “judge, imagine how an additional $2,000 a year would change your life”. Debaters need not spend an excessive amount of time personalizing their impacts for judges, but should do so with sufficient time investment to get their arguments to stick. At the end of the round, the judge may very well still be thinking about free money, and vote affirmative.

Conclusion

Rigid style prevents debaters from taking strategic advantage of opportunities. On this topic, debaters should attempt to innovate, develop unique skills, and win rounds by reading purely economic affirmatives. These affirmatives focus the debate on a single issue, decrease judge subjectivity by avoiding framework, and hedge against the best negative ground. Champion debaters should consider this option strongly.

---

[i] I’m the realest

[ii] Not