By Coach Joshua Spivey
Have a disproportionate win rate on aff or neg? Most people do. Want to get in on a little-known secret of persuasion? Most people do.
When most people have a disproportionate win rate on either aff or neg, they often attribute it to a lack of preparation on either side or round flukes. This blog will encourage you to consider an alternate reason why you’re more persuasive on one side than the other. Teaser: It comes down to the little-known secret of persuasion that I mentioned earlier.
Imagine this: Your mom says that either you or your brother has to unload the dishwasher. You’re faced with the impossible task of convincing him to do it. Desperation barely leaking into your voice, you offer to give him $100 if he does it. He just laughs and begins to walk away. Then you offer to give him the caramel macchiato you just ordered. We use persuasion daily, and though debate is not (should not) be bribery, many of the same principles apply. Why did the caramel macchiato work when the promise of $100 didn’t?
This is a not-so-classic example of high probability vs. high magnitude. A common principle of weighing impacts in debate. A commonsense way of making decisions daily.
Consciously or unconsciously, we’ve all often weighed decisions by magnitude vs. probability; in a debate round, there’s another element to keep in mind. This is going to change how you focus the debate depending on your side (aff or neg). The simple concept is this: on the negative, high magnitude wins, not high probability, and on the affirmative, high probability wins, not high magnitude. I’d encourage you to read that again so you get it straight.
Consider past rounds and past RFDs. Think about the rounds you’ve judged and the rounds you’ve just watched. Does the principle ring true? Now, remember that this is merely a principle and not a hard-and-fast, no-exceptions axiom. Even so, experience proves it true.
But why? In large part because of a psychological concept called loss aversion. Simply put, we are hardwired to be more directly motivated by loss than by potential gain. In this way, on the negative side, the higher magnitude of disadvantages is more persuasive than a high probability of inconveniences. This seems to match our own experience quite obviously.
But why is this not true for the affirmative? The affirmative team, leaning upon promises of improvements, makes a stronger case psychologically with close to certain minor benefits than with unlikely grand successes. Again, this comes down to loss aversion and certainty affinity.
But what does this mean? Practically speaking, this should adjust the focus of your debate rounds to align with the innate advantage of the side you represent. Affirmatives have inherent persuasion because they are aligned with change and improvement in a SQ that no one is entirely happy with. Negatives have an inherent power to utilize loss aversion, which high-magnitude arguments leverage powerfully.
There’s much more to be said, but I’ll leave you with this practical application. Take another look at your disproportionate win rate and consider how what we’ve covered today might impact that. Join Nile Debate for a deeper dive!