Rebuttals Review

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

• Affirmative Advantages • Responsibilities • Optimizing Time • Organization I •
• Organization II • Persuasion • Other Concerns • 2nd Affirm Review •

Affirmative Advantages: The affirmative's final rebuttal brings the debate round to a close and as such the affirmative has the advantage of having the last word. This advantage allows the last speaker to focus issues in favor of the affirmative position, and as long as no major issues were dropped in the 1AR the affirmative can turn a mediocre performance into an affirmative ballot.

Responsibilities: The affirmative shares the same responsibilities in this speech as the negative did in their last rebuttal.

1. Rebuild any affirmative Direct Refutation attacks on the negative's position that may have been damaged during the NR.
2. Rebuild any Affirmative Position arguments that were weakened by arguments presented during the NR.
3. Summarize the debate and weigh the issues on both sides.

Optimizing Time: Since this is a three minute speech, the affirmative cannot afford to spend time covering every issue raised in the debate; therefore, the affirmative must collapse issues more heavily than the negative. Generally, for items (a) and (b) the affirmative will want to rebuild only those issues that have been severely damaged and that are vital to the round. Collapsing issues at this point is safe if the affirmative has previously established a solid foundation -

1. the summarization section can be used to explain how the affirmative position on individual issues outweighs negative attacks,
2. a few loose ends are survivable, and
3. the negative does not have an opportunity to point out dropped issues.

Organization - Items (a) and (b): Part I of the final affirmative rebuttal should be devoted to rebuilding important attacks on the negative position and rebuilding vital affirmative arguments that were weakened by negative speeches. This portion of the rebuttal should be labeled as "clarification," and the debater may want to introduce this part with "First, let me clarify a few issues raised in this debate." The affirmative's object should be to remove any barriers that may prevent the judge from casting an affirmative ballot. For example, if the negative presented an effective value implication argument that remains strong after the NR, then the affirmative must dispose of this argument before they can effectively weigh the other issues in the round. Under ideal conditions, there will only be two or three items that require attention and this portion of the speech should take only one minute.

• Dropped Issues:

During the negative rebuttal, what issues did the negative fail to address?
What affirmative attacks did the negative fail to address?
What portions of their own case did the negative fail to discuss?

• Negative Representativeness

In what ways did the negative inadequately address issues of representativeness raised during their speeches? What further explanation, evidence, or support is the affirmative required to provide in order to win the issue of representativeness?

• Counterwarrants Against the Negative Position

Did the negative provide a credible response to the counterwarrants issued during the first affirmative rebuttal? What weaknesses remain and how can they be exploited?

• Value Objections Against the Negative Position

How did the negative respond to the value objections presented in the 1AR? What further argumentation is required to minimize the importance of their value?

• Value Implications Against the Negative Position

What repairs need to be effected to rebuild VI attacks weakened by the Negative response during their NR? How can you further convince the judge that adopting an affirmative attitude would result in negative effects?

• Repairing Establishment of Affirmative Value

What additional explanation or evidence is required to ensure that my value has been firmly established?

• Repairing Establishment of Affirmative Criteria

Have I adequately established a foundation for my criteria and have I sufficiently linked my criteria and value.

• Repairing Application of Affirmative Criteria

Have I fulfilled my obligation to demonstrate the importance of accepting the value of the proposition?

The debater must remember that he will not have time to respond to every element in this list - there will only be time to rebuild those items that were severely weakened by the Negative Rebuttal and that are vital to the outcome of the debate.

Organization - Item (c): Summarizing the debate and weighing the issues on both sides is the most important task for the affirmative at this point in the debate.

• Point out weaknesses in the negative position:

Briefly outline the flaws and weaknesses of the negative position. This is not the time for detailed evidence or explanation - persuade the judge that the negative stands on unstable ground.

• Point out the strengths found in the affirmative's position

Again, briefly outline and explain - be persuasive.

• Explain why the issues in this round weigh in favor of the affirmative position - compare both positions side-by-side

Which criteria better suited to judge the proposition?
Who fulfills its responsibility of meeting its criteria?
In what ways is the affirmative value superior to the negative value?
Why should the judge adopt the affirmative position or attitude?

Persuasion: At this point in the debate, the affirmative speaker should set aside his notes, briefs, and outlines, step out from behind the podium and talk with the judge. Frequently debaters are in such a hurry to prove what they are saying that they forget that Lincoln-Douglas debate is about values - they fail to express why they took this position in the first place. If a debater believes in his position and if the debater has laid the necessary ground-work in his previous speeches, the only thing left to do is to explain why the negative's position is unsuitable and why the affirmative's position should be adopted. A debater should appeal to the common sense and reasonability of the judge. A two minute persuasive summary is the most powerful weapon the affirmative has - he should use it to his advantage.

Other Concerns: Dropped issues and new issues in this rebuttal remain a concern for the affirmative speaker but less so than in any other speech. Although the negative debater does not have an opportunity to point out procedural flaws committed during this speech, the judge will often recognize severe problems and vote accordingly. The affirmative may drop issues that are inconsequential to the outcome of the debate, but some debaters frequently use this as an excuse to drop issues that they do not wish to deal with. This can be a serious error because the issue remains alive as long as it is on the judge's flow pad. New issues pose a similar problem. New issues presented during this speech may be interpreted by the judge as a forfeit - "I have nothing else to lose so I might as well give this new issue a shot." If the affirmative debater has not faired well thus far in the debate, he should remain calm, objectively examine the issues in the debate, and then work with whatever tools he has left - he still has a chance as long as he remains rational.

Second Affirmative Review: Please review the differences between the 2AR and the NC by answering the following questions:

1. What major advantage does the 2AR give the affirmative debater?
2. How can the affirmative cover all of the components of rebuilding Direct Refutation attacks and Affirmative position arguments in one minute?
3. How do collapsing issues differ in the 2AR than the NR?
4. In what way does the presentation of the 2AR differ from other speeches?
5. Why are dropped issues still a concern during the 2AR?
6. How might a judge view new issues presented during the 2AR?

Return to top of page

Rebuttals Review

Section Self Check:

1. What are the two primary responsibilities of the first affirmative rebuttal?
2. What is a flowsheet?
3. What advantages does a stock issue approach have over organizing rebuttals in the same order as the flowsheet?
4. What two questions should a debater ask himself in order to determine how much time he should spend on each issue?
5. What is a dropped issue? New issues?
6. What are the three primary responsibilities of the negative rebuttal?
7. What is collapsing issues? And, what are five concerns a negative should have when using this strategy?
8. What tool can a debater use to help balance the complexities in debate?
9. What advantage does the negative have over the affirmative?
10. What advantage does the affirmative have over the negative?
11. Why is collapsing issues imperative in the final rebuttal?
12. What concerns do dropped and new issues present for the last rebuttal?

Vocabulary/Concepts: flow - time optimization - weighing arguments - dropped issues - new issues in rebuttals - new evidence in rebuttals - linking arguments - collapsing issues - balancing complexity - burden of proof

Return to top of page