Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
This answer is a revision of a section of Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate, Version 1.0 (1989) and includes updated materials and examples. Thanks to Jessica Clarke for help with responses to justification arguments.
Justification arguments are used in some debates. The negative may argue that the affirmative plan or value example does not fully support the resolution. For example, under the resolution, "RESOLVED: That the federal government should implement a new comprehensive agricultural policy", the affirmative supports a plan to protect warm weather farming. The negative could argue that the affirmative does not justify federal action because only warm weather areas are helped by the plan. They could argue that state action would be a superior alternative. Such an argument is a justification argument. A JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENT shows THAT THE PLAN OR VALUE EXAMPLE DOES NOT SHOW THE RESOLUTION IS SUPERIOR TO OTHER ALTERNATIVES. Since the states might be a superior approach, the affirmative has not justified federal action on warm weather area farming.
EXAMPLE OF A JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENT:
RESOLUTION: RESOLVED: That the United States should establish uniform rules governing the procedure of all criminal courts.
AFFIRMATIVE PLAN: A uniform rule will ban six member juries in all criminal courts.
ADVANTAGE: The plan will end bad jury decisions caused by too few members.
NEGATIVE JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENT:
Juries are not used in all
criminal courts. The affirmative shows only why these courts
should have this new rule. It does not show all criminal courts
need this rule, hence, they have not justified the resolution.
AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TO THE JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENT:
Any criminal court can use a jury if it wants, hence it is important to have the uniform rule established in all criminal courts. Hence, a ban on six member juries justifies the entire resolution.
Justification of the plan or value example over other alternatives is considered an important issue by some judges because it forces the affirmative to support the resolution, not a subdivision of the resolution. In addition, it also forces the affirmative to offer the best position, not just a good one equal to other non-topical alternatives. However, not all judges, including myself, consider justification to be a voting issue. Our position is that as long as the affirmative can demonstrate that their plan has a benefit, then it is justified adequately. For example, why not support a ban on six member juries in all courts until it can be shown that using six member juries in all courts would be disadvantageous or that using a ban on six member juries in criminal cases only would be more advantageous? For judges like me, the negative should present a counterplan to advocate an alternative policy and then present a disadvantage against the affirmative policy.
Constructing a Justification Argument
You can construct a justification argument by doing the following:
I. Title (Resolution Term Justification)
Thesis: The case does not justify the word "x" in the resolution.
A. The Word is not justified in the topic
B. Alternative Action/Wording would be superior
C. Justification is a voting issue
1. Reason number 1
2. Reason number 2
Example:
I. States Justification
Thesis: The case does not justify the phrase "federal government" in the resolution.
A. Federal Government is not justified
1. The case gives no reason for federal action
2. Federal Government has little jurisdiction over crime
(evidence)
B. State Action is superior
1. State action works best for crime issues
(evidence)
2. State action is more flexible
(evidence)
C. Justification is a voting issue
1. The affirmative has failed to offer sufficient proof for the resolution
They may show that their plan is a good idea but they have not shown their plan offers sufficient proof for the resolution.
2. The affirmative has affirmed a different resolution
The affirmative has shown that
action should be taken but has not shown that their plan, using
the resolution as a basis, is the action that should be taken. In
fact, what the affirmative has shown is that states should
establish a program to reduce juvenile crime.
Responding to a Justification Argument
You can make a number of responses to justification arguments including the following:
1. Justification is not a voting issue
As long as you show that the affirmative plan is a good idea--the affirmative has done all it needs to do.
2. We have justified the topic
We should our plan has an advantage giving strong reason to vote for our topical plan.
3. The term is justified.
Read evidence on why, for example, federal government action is justified.
4. Their alternative is not justified.
Read evidence on why, for example, state action is not justified.
5. The resolution is merely a "gateway"
The resolution establishes a ground for the affirmative plan--not a statement that must be proven in every linguistic aspect.
6. Time Constraints make complete justification impossible
The negative's position would force the affirmative to have a 20 minute affirmative case because we would need to justify every term in the resolution against every potential alternative.
7. Justification harms specific argumentation
Instead, we are forced to debate generic issues like federal government versus state action.
8. Justification slants the debate against the affirmative
Now, the negative needs to pick just one part of one word in the topic and then they can claim victory. Make the negative win on a more substantial issue.
Thanks to Bryan Young for this question.