Why It’s So Hard To Win On Negative At NITOC, and What To Do About It
Some years ago I had an interesting conversation with Van Schalin, the former President of Stoa, about the difficulties of being on the Negative side in Team Policy and what to do about it. Reflecting on that conversation and many more since, I've put some serious thought into why Affirmative teams have such a seemingly significant advantage, particularly at NITOC.
For example, one of the early outrounds at nationals some years ago saw approximately 70+ percent of the Affirmatives win, which meant that some sizable upsets had likely taken place in which the coin toss may have played an important role. From what I found, that set of rounds is not the norm. In fact, other outrounds came to opposite conclusions (quarterfinals another year went overwhelmingly to Negatives), yet it still comes as no surprise that the vast majority of teams who win the coin toss during outrounds continue to choose Affirmative for Team Policy.
There is no doubt that there is a well-established premise that the Affirmative team has a CLEAR advantage, and 2018 is no exception. Just today, I had a phone conversation with Stoa parent Matthew Shipley (who often works in tabulation), who told me that in tab they've seen a late-season trend of Affirmatives winning more often, especially compared to earlier in the year.
So, after 11 years of coaching, attending nearly every NITOC, and giving it some thought, I am finally ready to present my top five reasons why this trend will likely continue this year (and perhaps more importantly, what to do about it).
Let's start with Grififth Vertican’s Top 5 Reasons Affirmatives Win at NITOC:
Airtight Affirmative Cases: Something Shipley and I were in complete agreement on is that this is the number one reason for the Aff advantage. This late in the season, many Affirmative teams have had an entire SEASON of perfecting their case with rewrites, tightening plan text, finding additional evidence, and preparing responses to responses, and thus will most likely be ready to debate issues involving their case.
Try or Die (a.k.a. Bias to Action): If there is a real problem in the status quo (especially one that raises serious concerns like safety, money, jobs, lives) and the plan is a practical means to solve it, the appeal to “do something” is what psychologists and motivational speakers call the bias towards action. Just consider the notoriety Psychologist Jordan Peterson has gained by challenging young men to embrace this bias and for pete’s sake clean up your room! In debate, try or die means we should try something because the problem isn't going to fix itself, and likely the plan won't make it worse. This means that the Affirmative is appealing to community judges on the most basic of human needs: to just do something. Overcoming this intrinsic desire is extremely difficult.
The Moral High Ground: In law school I had the privilege of being one of the four students invited on a Trial Advocacy team. One of the strategies we learned was how to appeal to a jury’s sense of justice. If done effectively, the jurors are far more likely overlook other flaws in a case to uphold what they deem to be morally right. The morally right outcome can be more persuasive even than counter evidence. Similarly, Affirmatives often have access to a moral argument: that the waste, corruption, or complacency existing in the status quo is not only wrong, it is morally wrong and we have a duty to do something about it. Thus, the ability to access a moral imperative gives the Affirmative a clear advantage in terms of impact calculus or impact weighing.
No Alternative: The ability to fiat (Latin for "let it be done") a policy that otherwise lacks political support, funding, or willpower gives a huge strategic advantage to Aff since the opposition is often left defending the status quo. For all the reasons listed above, Neg is playing against a stacked deck. Unless they are exceptional debaters or gifted speakers, this is often too high a hill for them to climb by relying on generic briefs or mitigating arguments.
The Squirrel Case: Throwing the change-up in baseball can be a highly effective pitch because it often comes at a time and speed the batter is not expecting. In the same way, busting out a brand new case at Nationals that the Negative has never seen before will give the Affirmative a huge predictable and evidentiary edge. An experienced judge often knows when the Neg has been bitten by a squirrel because the look of death that often comes across the Neg’s face speaks louder than any words could. Just think about how right now, some kid named Jimmy (not a real person) of Smackover, Arkansas (a real town) with way too much time on his hands is plotting your team's demise by writing his super sneaky Uber CAV 2 case, which you will, unfortunately, hit in round six!
So what to do, what to do?? Besides winning the coin toss, what else can be done to improve your odds of winning at NITOC? I'm glad you asked, because the answer awaits below...
Griffith Vertican’s Top 5 Things to Do Now:
Diversify: One of the ways to make better use of the time advantage of the 13 to 5 minute Negative block is to run a good mix of arguments. Years ago, professor and coach Konrad Hack taught me the opposition triangle, which categories negative arguments into three categories: Technical, Net Beneficial, and Critical arguments. In short, the more unique the story of each argument and the more they impact out to a voting issue, the more difficult it is for the 1AR. This diversified negative strategy gives you not only line-by-line dropped argument advantage (great for flow judges) but should give you more outs on the Impact Calculus and voting level. It gives more levels for the judge to consider. To employ this strategy, assess the arguments in your negative briefs (assuming you have one) and prioritize the ones that have more unique links (with stronger impacts) and/or operate in different categories. Now, even if you’re not winning the net benefits but you’re winning the critical or technical aspect, you have a higher probability the judge will check your box.
Network: As my dad once told me one while I was studying for the bar (the Attorney bar of course), "don't just study hard... study smart." The most efficient way to multiply your work is to team up with others. If allowed by your club, you should go outside your club (and region) to exchange briefs with others, gather flows on top-cases, and find out what the best teams are running. Set goals with your partner on the amount of evidence and briefs you want to produce or revamp from now until NITOC (one new brief a day wouldn't be bad). The goal here is to gather intel and as many briefs as possible. As the ancient Chinese proverb puts it, “Chance favors the prepared mind” - nowhere is that truer than in policy debate.
Condense and Strategize: If you have four different negative briefs on the Highway Trust Fund case which will take you over an hour to read, it is time to condense and synthesize. You need to do an assessment of which arguments are the best, how concise the evidence is, and what you can realistically read in your sixteen minutes of constructive speeches. Then, you and your partner should be on the same page ahead of time on who is running what and approximately how much time each position will take. Make sure you also discuss what you plan to go for in the rebuttals. The more you think this through and plan it out ahead of time, the better your odds of victory.
Counterplan: It makes no sense to keep losing to the same Aff with the same Negative brief. I was at a tournament one year where the team running a seatbelt case nearly went undefeated with it (again) even though everyone knew that was the case they were running. However, this time they were dealt a loss in prelims. What argument did they lose to? You guessed it, a counterplan. I get it, I get your hesitation, judges have a wide range of feelings on this strategy and it's risky, but if you’ve been losing to the same case using essentially the same brief all season and you really haven’t found anything new… then why not? What do you have to lose? Instead of doing the same thing, be like Doug Pederson, Coach of the Philadelphia Eagles: if you want to beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, you're going to have to take some risks… mainly, don’t settle for field goals when you can score touchdowns! Now, to employ the strategy effectively, have a plan text ready and run a disadvantage that they cause but you avoid while still solving the gist of their case. The CP strategy is the great equalizer and an effective answer to the squirrel case because it allows you to bring in more evidence. When done right, it takes out Aff's impact calculus and bias to action advantage while accessing another category of the triangle. In others, it could tip the scales in your favor.
Come to the NITOC Boot Camp: Ok, this is a shameless plug, but there’s really no better way to prep for Nationals than a super-intensive camp that includes strategy sessions, research time, practice rounds, and private coaching. If you can’t come to mine, then why not do your own: make a schedule for yourself that includes researching, writing, and running practice rounds. Do them online if you have to.