3 Reasons You Shouldn’t Run Tiny Affirmatives
This post is a continuation of our conversation with Danielle. If you haven’t already, read the previous parts here:
Reader Question: Tiny Affirmatives
Why is it so Hard to Run Disadvantages Against Tiny Affirmatives?
How to Run Huge DAs Against Tiny Affirmatives
Homeschoolers Hate Topicality: A Metagame Story (Part 1)
Homeschoolers Hate Topicality: A Metagame Story (Part 2)
6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 1)
6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 2)
2 Reasons to Prefer a Definition (When the Affirmative is Being Silly)
6 Reasons to Prefer a Definition that Really Work
3 Reasons to Prefer a Definition (That You Should Never Run)
Tiny affirmatives are cases designed to change as little as possible, thereby making it hard for the negative to come up with anything to say against it. Tiny cases are having a moment in some of the leagues we coach. They’re undeniably frustrating to debate against. But they are not viable. Here’s why:
Vulnerable to Topicality
If the resolution says that national policy should be substantially reformed, and your plan makes a subtle tweak, it is not topical.
Topicality is out of vogue right now, and most negatives don’t know how to run it effectively. But you shouldn’t plan around that. You won’t be able to achieve your tournament goals with a strategy of: “Hopefully I don’t hit anyone who knows how to run topicality.” Instead, write a case that is as logically air-tight as you can possibly make it, regardless of the current trends.
If you’re not happy with your topicality game, don’t worry. We have a series of posts coming up to help you take it to the next level. When you’re done reading, you should be eager to hit a tiny affirmative and take it down.
Persuasively Anemic
Big changes are exciting. “Let’s ban this common thing. Fund a new technology. Change the world. Everything will be better.” You can build scary harms – big ones, because you’re going to solve them with a big plan. Then you can paint a vivid picture of the world post-plan, with inspiring advantages that spark genuine enthusiasm in the judge.
A plan like that is more than the sum of its parts. Hope is the most powerful human emotion. If the judge is hopeful before the negative gets up to speak, the affirmative has a significant advantage.
On the other hand, small changes are boring. “Let’s tweak this. Adjust this number. Alter this thing no one cares about. Try to stay awake.” The harms aren’t scary, and the advantages are bland. Building persuasive momentum – one of the unique strengths of the affirmative – is difficult.
Remember, you’re not debating for the benefit of the negative team. You’re debating for the benefit of the judge. The judge doesn’t want to see you squirm and annoy and dodge your way to the finish line. The judge wants to see you boldly take a stand. The judge wants to be inspired.
Give the people what they want.
Small Advantages are Easily Outweighed
Sure, it’s hard to run big disadvantages against tiny affirmatives. But it can still be done, as we showed in this article. If you’re tinkering with a large, interconnected system and getting a small advantage, you’re vulnerable. A smart negative will find some other part of that interconnected system that you’re disrupting, stack Brinks until the disadvantage becomes terrifying, and then use it to outweigh your entire case.
If you run a big affirmative, you have tools for defeating big disadvantages. You have wiggle room. But tiny affirmatives are one trick ponies. They only thing they’re good at is not getting hit. When they get hit anyway, as they inevitably do, they collapse.
Have the courage to run an interesting case. Judges will reward you.