by Mike Lacy

If you haven’t already heard, debater flexibility is the wave of the future for debating on the neg.  By debater flex I mean the ability to go for an array of diverse categories of arguments – disads, counterplans, kritiks, topicality, impact turns, link turning the case, etc.  It’s a term I stole from Jarrod Atchison who talked about the importance of debater flex in his ballot from the final round of the 2008 NDT. 

It’s easy to see some basic value in versatility:  you don’t get locked into one position, sometimes T is the best option, etc.  However, debater flex becomes even more important at higher levels of debate.  Casey Harrigan recently wrote a pretty okay article on advanced aff strategy that explains how aff versatility can be used to exploit and beat the neg.  In similar ways, neg versatility can be used to exploit and beat the aff.

First, it messes with a lot of aff strategic decision making, both before and during the round.  Affirmative teams will have a much harder time deciding which aff or advantages they want to read if you can go for anything against them.  You don’t want to lock yourself into only being able to go for politics and case defense because the other team could read a questionably topical aff that has a great angle against politics.  Limiting yourself by not being able to go for certain arguments makes their job a lot easier.  Similarly, if the 1NC consists of a topicality argument, a few disads, a counterplan, a kritik, and some case defense and the 2N has the credibility to go for any of those, the 2AC has to spend time answering all of those.  Alternatively, if you try to pull that off and you can’t go for T or the K, a smart 2A will crush whatever position you want to go for making it a lot tougher to win.

Messing with the aff can occur over multiple rounds too.  As one example, if you feel confident in your first couple of prelims, you can go for arguments you otherwise wouldn’t.  So, let’s say you have some really good generic counterplans going into the first tournament of the year.  If you can only go for those, then good teams will scout that and write answers.  If instead you go for your generic topic K it helps keep your more important strategies under the radar, and also means that the next time you read that K it’s going to draw more fire (since the other team thinks you want to go for it – regardless of whether you do or not).

Second, it maximizes strategic utility both before and during the round.  A lot of times you’ll find yourself debating an aff that doesn’t link to a lot of what you have to say.  In those instances, being able to go for a somewhat questionable T arg or impact turning the aff might be the best strategic option, especially against a more advanced team that is well-prepared for your other generics.  In terms of doing neg research, being able to go for anything helps maximize the utility of the work you’re producing.  Some topics are better for the K, some affs should be impact turned (warming bad and growth good is a double turn…), etc.  Being versatile means you let the quality of both the research and the strategy dictate where you go – not your predispositions about certain arguments.

An example that demonstrates both of those effects:  Let’s say you’ve been going for word PICs a decent amount and teams definitely perceive it – they always change their plan against you, etc.  When you’re writing a case neg it’s really easy to put 1NC shells together for arguments – it only takes a few cards.  So you can easily google “the word X” and have the 1NC shell to a word PIC with pretty minimal effort (usually).  You’re probably going to find a better, more specific strategy, but spending the hour or so it takes to cut those 2 word PIC cards will pay dividends when the 2AC spends a bunch of time on it, making it easier to go for the better strategy.

The last reason debater flex is important in advanced negative strategy is that it helps deal with new affs.  As you move up the ranks of debate you’ll encounter more and more new affs, especially at the TOC and NDT.  Debating new affs is inherently difficult because you get so much less time to strategize and think about the best options.  Being able to go for any position makes debating a new aff a lot easier for a bunch of reasons:  Kritiks always have a link; new affs usually have a T problem; impact turns put the debate back on your ground (somewhat) and have a guaranteed link; a diverse 1NC will let you test the waters and give you more time to think about the best strategic option; and lastly, a lot of new affs usually have one or two glaring problems (major topicality issue, intuitive advantage counterplan that solves the whole case but is theoretically questionable, a kritik that easily turns and solves the case, etc.) and being versatile is necessary to exploit those weaknesses.

I think most people are aware that being versatile on the neg is good.  Hopefully this helps you gain a deeper understanding of the strategic value of these basic concepts and apply them better to advanced negative strategy.