The 3NR

At post-season tournaments, the frequency with which teams break new affirmatives increases exponentially. Unfortunately, this can be a recipe for pre-round misunderstandings and even confrontations—especially when combined with the heightened level of stress that generally accompanies debates at these tournaments. Like baseball, debate is full of unwritten rules—norms that the community generally agrees upon but which are not codified or universally understood. When an individual feels that a peer has violated one of these rules, they are often deeply offended. But what are the unwritten rules regarding disclosure of new affirmatives? And perhaps as importantly, what should they be? This post is an invitation for coaches and debaters to discuss “new aff” norms in advance of this year’s post-season tournaments. Some starting points for the discussion—including hypothetical scenarios—are below the fold.

• What constitutes a “new affirmative” for the purposes of pre-round disclosure? In what situations should the affirmative disclose that they are reading a new version of an existing case as opposed to an entirely new case?

• What constitutes a “new plan” for the purposes of disclosure? Should minor modifications be disclosed before the round even if the exact text of the plan has not been read before? Is it legitimate for teams to make minor changes to their plan in order to avoid pre-round disclosure?

• What constitutes a “new advantage” for the purposes of disclosure? Must the thesis of the advantage change or is it enough that the impact or internal link is changed?

• Why do we care so much? Has pre-round disclosure moved beyond “courtesy” to “obligation”? Or should it? Are we right or wrong to exempt new affirmatives (and/or new plans and advantages) from our typical expectations regarding pre-round disclosure? What can be done to minimize the frequency of misunderstandings and disagreements regarding the best practices for pre-round disclosure?

The following hypotheticals may provide helpful “test cases” to guide the discussion; they are not intended to be specific to any particular team, so please don’t be offended if I mentioned a case you or your team has been reading.

Hypothetical A: What Constitutes A New Affirmative?

1. A team has been reading a Food Stamps affirmative that has the United States federal government increase funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; it claims a hegemony advantage and an economy advantage. The team decides to read an affirmative that removes the quality assurance requirements from SNAP and claims a racism/inequality advantage. Should the affirmative disclose that they are reading a “new aff”? If not, what should they disclose? Should they mention that it is a “new aff” but that it is about SNAP? Would “new aff—including a new plan and new advantage(s), but it’s still about SNAP” be appropriate?

2. Same scenario, but the affirmative decides to read only an economy advantage. The internal link, however, is different than the previous version: instead of arguing that increasing funding for SNAP provides an economic stimulus, they now plan to argue that removing the quality assurance requirements shores up state budgets and spurs investment in urban, minority neighborhoods. Should the affirmative disclose that they are reading a “new aff”? If not, what should they disclose?

3. A team has been reading an unemployment insurance affirmative that has the United States federal government extend and expand unemployment benefits for workers that have been laid off during the past two years; it claims a free trade advantage and an economy advantage. The team decides to read an affirmative that provides health insurance for unemployed workers instead of extending/expanding unemployment benefits but still claims a free trade advantage and an economy advantage; the thesis of both advantages remains the same but the solvency cards are changed to reflect the new plan. Should the affirmative disclose that they are reading a “new aff”? Should they mention that it is a “new aff” but that it claims the same free trade and economy advantages?

4. Same situation, but the team decides to read a plan that provides “all necessary social services” to unemployed workers and claims a critical globalization advantage. The thesis of the advantage is similar to the existing free trade advantage: both argue that the plan deters protectionist populism from gaining traction, thereby ensuring the continuation of free trade, but the impact to the globalization advantage focuses on third world poverty whereas the free trade advantage focused on the possibility of trade wars sparking great power conflict. Should the affirmative disclose that they are reading a new affirmative? If not, what should they disclose? Is this the “same aff” with a “new plan” and the free trade advantage with “a new impact”?

Hypothetical B: What Constitutes A New Plan?

1. A team has been reading an abortion affirmative that has the Supreme Court rule on equal protection grounds that restrictions on Medicaid funding of abortions is unconstitutional; it claims a patriarchy advantage. The team decides to alter their plan text to no longer specify equal protection grounds. Should the new, modified plan be disclosed before the round? If not, what should the affirmative disclose? Is it appropriate to say “it will be our abortion affirmative with the existing patriarchy advantage, but we have changed the plan text”?

2. Same situation, but this time the affirmative changes the plan to say “topical portions of Medicaid” instead of just “Medicaid”—nothing else in the 1AC is changed. Should the new, modified plan be disclosed before the round? If not, what should the affirmative disclose?

3. Same situation, but this time the affirmative changes the plan to say “The judicial branch” instead of “The Supreme Court”—nothing else in the 1AC is changed. Should the new, modified plan be disclosed before the round? If not, what should the affirmative disclose?

Hypothetical C: What Constitutes A New Advantage?

1. A team has been reading an immigration Medicaid affirmative that has the Supreme Court rule that Medicaid eligibility restrictions based on citizenship status are unconstitutional; it claims a judicial independence advantage and a bioterrorism advantage. The team decides to change the impact to their judicial independence advantage: instead of arguing that U.S. judicial independence is modeled by Iraq and that Iraqi judicial independence prevents a Middle East war, they plan to argue that U.S. judicial independence is modeled by South Korea and that South Korean judicial independence prevents a Korean war. Should they disclose that they are reading the bioterrorism advantage and a new advantage? Or should they disclose that they are reading the bioterrorism advantage and the judicial independence advantage, but with a different impact scenario?

2. Same situation, but this time the affirmative plans to read a soft power advantage instead of their bioterrorism advantage. There are two impacts to soft power: bioterrorism and hegemony. Should the affirmative disclose that they are reading the judicial independence advantage and a new advantage? Are they obligated to mention that they are still reading a bioterrorism impact, even though the internal link has been changed?

Feel free to respond to one or more hypotheticals or to pose additional ones.

Bill Batterman

Bill is the Associate Director of Debate at Woodward Academy. The 2009 Wisconsin Debate Coaches’ Association Coach of the Year and 2010 National Debate Coaches’ Association Educator of the Year, Bill is an instructor at the Georgetown Debate Seminar and the Spartan Debate Institute at Michigan State University.

Website - Twitter - Facebook - More Posts