Splitting the Negative


 * See also the Emory switch, a variant of splitting the Negative that reverses the order of on-case and off-case arguments.

Splitting the Negative is a popular strategy for arranging Negative arguments in a Team Policy round. "On-case" arguments that directly respond to the 1AC are presented in the first Negative speech, while "off-case" arguments that raise new lines of discussion are presented in the second Negative speech. The 1NR then responds to the 2AC.

The name "splitting the Negative" comes from the fact that the strategy "splits" the Negative block: the first speech in the block (the 2NC) generally focuses entirely on presenting new arguments, while the second speech in the block (the 1NR) generally focuses entirely on refuting the 2AC. Speaker responsibilities are thus "split". Splitting the Negative may be referred to as a "split Neg" or "splitting the block".

Typical outline
In the 1NC, the first Negative speaker raises "on-case" arguments that respond directly to the 1AC. These typically include topicality, significance, inherency, and solvency that is directly related to the arguments raised in the 1AC (for example, attacking the credentials of the Affirmative's solvency evidence.) Some off-case arguments may be raised if the speaker has time.

After the 1NC is done, the second Affirmative speaker gives the 2AC, and is cross-examined by the first Negative speaker. The first Negative speaker generally uses this cross-examination to set up arguments for the other Negative speaker to run in the next speech, the 2NC.

In the 2NC, the second Negative speaker raises "off-case" arguments based on issues the 1AC did not discuss. These typically include disadvantages and solvency arguments that are based on external lines of information, like unexpected roadblocks, counteracting forces, etc. Some on-case arguments may be raised if the speaker has time, or has discovered new arguments since the 1NC.

After the 2NC, the first Negative speaker gets back up to deliver the 1NR, which generally focuses entirely on the 2AC's responses to the arguments he or she raised in the 1NC.

Strategic advantages
Because disadvantages and other major off-case arguments are not introduced until the 2NC, the Affirmative cannot respond until the 1AR. Thus, the 1AR only has five minutes to cover both the responses to their case and eight minutes of completely new arguments. Since off-case arguments may require more depth of analysis to refute, many Negatives feel that this gives them a strategic edge.

Many debaters feel that splitting the Negative makes it easier to handle the flow of the round. Because the 1NR responds to the 2AC, which is in turn responding to his or her own arguments in the 1NC, the first Negative speaker really only has to debate about his or her own arguments. Likewise, the second Negative speaker can almost entirely ignore the first Negative speaker's arguments, until they need to be crystallized in the 2NR.

Deciding to split the Negative may also be based on speaker preferences. For example, if one speaker is much better at wrapping up the round at the end, but prefers to run off-case arguments, it may be advisable to run a split Negative with him or her as the second Negative speaker (delivering both the 2NC and the 2NR.)