Author: Maggie Pierce, University of Wyoming debater If you’re a novice debater, the idea of writing one debate case can feel very overwhelming, let alone writing one debate case a month. I am happy to tell you that case writing does not have to be stressful! Monthly, you can produce a well-researched, original case without wanting to rip your hair out. The key to stress-free case writing is breaking the work down into manageable chunks. Below the fold are my 5 steps to writing a killer case: 1. Picking Apart the Resolution/ Preliminary Research
Don’t try to tackle the topic all at once. Some topics are pretty complicated, so spend time familiarizing yourself with key words and ideas before moving on to in-depth arguments. Create an outline of the concepts and vocabulary you need to understand, then deal with each piece on its own. Take the February 2020 topic for example: Resolved: The United States should replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income. Before understanding the topic as a whole, we need to know what “means-tested welfare programs” and “universal basic income” are. Questions you might ask yourself: “What is means tested welfare?” “What is a UBI?” “What does it mean to replace means-tested welfare programs with a UBI?” “How might this be modeled in round?” “Who/what will be affected by this?” WDR’s topic analyses will help with this. But, even in those posts, there may be terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with. The same can be said for briefs. Reading a little bit about everything you don’t understand will give you broad topic knowledge and make both case writing and in-round debating much easier. When doing preliminary research, you may come across some words or phrases that do not have clear definitions. Take note of these words. They may become a point of contestation in round, so it may benefit you to include a definition for them in your case. We’ll talk about this more in step 4. 2. Brainstorm Now that you understand the topic, it’s time to come up with arguments. The goal of this stage is to set up a road map for your research. After preliminary research, you’ll have some idea of arguments you can make and some idea what the impacts of those arguments will be. Let’s say I’m brainstorming an automation contention for the aff. My research roadmap might look something like this: Automation UQ (uniqueness): Automation coming now, millions are on the brink of unemployment UQ: means-tested welfare is not sufficient to prevent poverty from unemployment L (link): UBI provides a safety net to employees IL (internal link): Social safety nets are key to preventing poverty Impact: Poverty prevents food and healthcare access, more people die Now, I know exactly what I need to research to write this contention. I need to find five pieces of evidence that make arguments for my prewritten tags. 3. Research Now that you have a roadmap, it’s time to do the actual research. WDR has a post on doing good research in the works, so I won’t go into too much detail here. As you go, you may find that the arguments you hoped to make are not very well supported. That’s fine! You can always return to step 2. As you research, your goal should be to find a few pieces of evidence for each argument you want to make. This way, you can use your best card in your case, then use the others for extensions. If you find any evidence in your research that disproves the argument you’re making, save that too. That way, when you’re preparing blocks, you’ll already have the evidence you need for them. 4. Compile the case All you need to do now is pick your best pieces of evidence for each part of your argument and put it all together! Finally, we’re going to add some finishing touches. All of these are optional, but you should decide whether to use them based on the topic and who your judge is. a. Introduction Introductions to debate cases should be like an introduction to an essay: they should grab the judges attention and show why your arguments are important. Introductions are best used in debates with ley judges. They are an easy way to grab their attention and make your team seem put together. However, because introductions don’t add anything to the content of the debate, you should skip them if you’re debating in front of experienced judges and instead fill that time with arguments. If you have an introduction, make sure it doesn’t take up more than ten seconds of speaking time. b. Definitions As we discussed in step one, you’ll need to decide whether the words of the resolution need to be defined. Are there any words you see as being debatable? Are there certain definitions that, if accepted, would derail your case? Take the January 2017 topic as an example: “Resolved: In order to better respond to international conflicts, the United States should significantly increase its military spending.” Without spending any time researching, it is clear that “significantly increase” is hard to define and pretty important. Terms like these should definitely have definitions in case. For the February 2020 resolution, however, I wouldn’t predict there being much debate about any of the terms. If I were writing a case, I would keep definitions on hand in case other teams caught me off guard with weird definitions, but I would not include them in every version of my case. c. Observations Observations are assumptions or points you’d like to make about the resolution. You should only read them if you think that they will help your case, otherwise they are wasting time that you should use to make arguments. d. Framework Framework is a way for the judge to weigh the debate. The default framework in PF is utilitarianism i.e. the judge votes for the team that causes the most net good. If you want the debate to be judged under a utilitarian framework, then you don’t need a framework section. e. Conclusion Conclusions, like the introductions, are very important for ley judges. A conclusion allows you to wrap up your case in a pretty bow and tell the judge why they’re voting for you. If you have a technical judge, though, you should skip the conclusion. 5. Revise, revise, revise You should not be finished editing your case after your first draft. Throughout the month, you should edit and improve your arguments based on your debates and feedback from judges. If you will be debating mostly in front of ley judges, you should present your case to your parents, a teacher, or another adult willing to lend their time and ask them for feedback. Make sure that they understand the arguments you make and think your link story and impacts are plausible. Having people similar to your future judges critique your case in this way will give you insight into what your judges are thinking and even preempt some critiques you’ll get post round. Though this article was focused on writing your constructive speech, your pre-tournament prep should also include extension and block writing! We want to hear from you! Disagree with something we said? Have a question? Feel free to jump in in the comments, we'll be sure to respond! Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|