Balanced negative

A balanced negative case is a position that the Negative speaker can present in a Lincoln-Douglas debate round that indirectly undercuts the resolution. Balanced negatives can be described as somewhat of a “backdoor approach” for a Negative and tend to focus their argumentation on claims that two competing concepts in the resolution are equal or can work together. 

Examples
In the Stoa 2011-2012 resolution “When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be upheld over economic security,” a balanced negative could argue that the two concepts never truly come in conflict or can argue that society works best when both personal freedom and economic security are valued equally.

Another example of a balanced negative position can be seen in the NCFCA 2011-2012 resolution “In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact.” A balanced negative could render the resolution: “In the pursuit of justice, due process actually is equally valuable to the finding of fact.”