April 6, 2008
There was a time when TOC debaters actually debated. My two favorite were Max Stevens from Green Valley HS in Vegas and Ryan Lawrence from my school. When these two tangled, it was fun to watch. I’m sure they debated each other more than the three times I witnessed, but the ones I saw always came down to the last speech. What made these two standouts was their ability to articulate at a fast rate without crossing over into Policy spreading. Not to mention, they both maintained the traditional style of debating where they defended and attacked everything.
The first time I saw these two go at it was at USC when USC had a finals bid. I judged Max in an earlier round and dropped him because although he was definitely the better debater, his opponent gave him an argument that he didn’t handle very well. My team at that time was heavily into TOC and was mad at me because I dropped MAX STEVENS, the guy with umpteen bids. But remember, I base everything on turns so it really didn’t matter how many bids he had. When I judged, everything was based on the arguments. But even though Max had a 4-2 record, he still made his way to the Finals and earned another bid along with my guy – Ryan Lawrence. Max was a natural and Ryan was the researcher and I knew based on the earlier round that Ryan had a big advantage. The problem was Ryan was so intimidated by Max he didn’t have a chance in that final round. When I saw it, I really felt that Ryan had done everything right to win the round and it definitely came down to the last speech. However, Ryan began his last speech with, “Even though I’ve already lost, I’ll still try to provide a closing speech.” If you are reading this, this is a no-no. You never admit defeat, never. I was so mad because he had a panel of TOC judges that were probably going to give Max the win anyway – but I wanted to see what arguments they felt Max won. With his last opening statement, he took the pressure off of them because now they could use that as an excuse to give Max the win.
The second time I saw them debate was at Long Beach the following year. Long Beach no longer had a bid but still some of the best debaters in the country were there for practice. Since all of my judges had to leave, I had to judge the elimination rounds if they needed me. Sure enough I had to judge the Quarter-Finals when I found out that Ryan and Max were going to hit. I paid a former student who was a hired judge for another school to judge for me so I could see this rematch. I really wanted Ryan to win this round. Since Ryan learned his lesson and no longer admitted defeat but went down fighting, Max had to earn this victory. So once again they went at it just the way I liked it – right down the flow. Even though Max refuted all the arguments, his weakness became evident. Since Ryan did his research, he easily turned Max’s arguments while Max struggled to reciprocate. It was obvious to me that Ryan won but it was up to the TOC judges to determine a winner. Yes, Ryan won and went on to win the tournament.
The final time I saw them debate was the Semi-Finals at Stanford. Once again, they both earned their bids so it was just really for bragging rights now. If you have ever seen Max debate, then you know that he could be really intimidating. One thing I saw him do that I liked was before the round he would chat with you and get you to admit which side was your favorite. Then, if he won the toss, he would choose that side. Also, Max was good at dominating the CX, so if you had any chance of beating him, you had to be able to withstand his 3 minutes of grueling non-stop interrogation. Ryan, because of his knowledge and research skills, was actually able to neutralize Max’s intimidation because he gave all the right answers. In order to beat Max, you really had to know your case because he would exploit any weakness, no matter how small, your case had. For this round they were fortunate enough to have as one of their judges the debate coach of Stanford. To prove how talented he was, he said he would flow the round on a bubble gum wrapper. I’m not that talented; I would have to do it on a post-it. This round was really close but Ryan once again provided the better turns and it was just a matter of how the TOC judges saw it. Oh yes, Ryan won again and went on to win the tournament. He actually tied for the win because both finalists agreed that 1:00am was too late to debate and agreed to close the tournament out.
These two were my favorites because you knew when they met it was going to be a battle. It was also enjoyable because you could comprehend everything they said and their arguments were crystal clear. Remember, if you want be one of the elite, you have to try and debate everything.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Why Am I Not Qualified to Judge TOC Debaters?
March 2, 2008
I just finished competing at my favorite tournament, Stanford, and for the 1st time I put myself in the Varsity Pool so that I could become more of an expert on the TOC style of debating. To my surprise every time the ballots were laid out, my name was no where to be found. But when you have a judge that has coached for 23 years and has coached students that have won at every tournament we attend (including Stanford) with the exception of the Varsity Division of Berkeley and the State tournament, wouldn’t you think that any school would be happy to have me as a judge – apparently not. However, because they were short on judges, I did happen to get a few varsity scraps and then I began to realize why I’m an outcast. I’m an LD traditionalist and most TOC debaters are merely fast talkers that spew out meaningless rhetoric.
What’s an LD traditionalist? It’s a judge that likes debaters that can defend their case and attack their opponent’s case in a structured manner. The TOC debaters that I have encountered no longer have the skills to refute arguments. Therefore, they spend most of their time using silly techniques in order to avoid debating like Off Cases, Spikes, Overviews, Underviews, and let’s not forget Spreading. To top it off, there are TOC judges and coaches encouraging these techniques so now it has become a norm. But if I’m judging the round, at least you know where you stand. If you can’t turn arguments or you continually avoid arguments, odds are you will lose my ballot. If it’s a TOC judge, you have a chance because all you need is one good argument to drop your opponent’s case. Never mind that your opponent supplied you with great examples, those examples no longer matter because in your Observation #24 you stated that “examples don’t matter.” Since your opponent didn’t contest it, you now win. How does this encourage good debating? Also, how do you pick a winner when both sides avoid arguing? Even the TOC judges can’t get it right half the time. With this style of debating, I firmly believe the TOC judge needs to intervene after both CX’s, and tell both debaters which arguments are most important so at least they know what the criteria is to win. When the round is over, most TOC debaters don’t even know why they won or lost the round. Even if you dominate your opponent, you could still lose because of Observation #24.
Now let’s look at the problem I saw with this latest topic, “Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.” Every time the Aff supplied solid reasoning as to why this it true, the Neg would run and hide from the examples and claim it didn’t matter. For example, terrorist have proven that they are dangerous so any nation harboring terrorist definitely shouldn’t be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons. Most Negs never wanted to touch this argument. How can you win a round if you can’t at least justify why a nation harboring terrorist should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? However, Negs were winning by claiming terrorist are not a part of the debate. Are you kidding me? Now let’s look to the Neg. The biggest example the Neg was using was the Iraq War as an example of the catastrophe you can create when you use hard power. Most Aff’s didn’t want any part of this example so they either ignored it or brought out a card that claimed hard power is always best. I squirreled in a round where I picked the Neg because they came the closest to a traditionalist, and the other two judges picked the Aff – even though the Aff dropped the Neg case – because the hard power card that was used cancelled out the Neg’s case. Once again, are you kidding me? How is it possible to win by avoiding arguments or speaking so fast that your opponent can’t catch everything? How is that even debating? Also, how does one argument knock out an entire case?
At any rate, I now feel I’m even more qualified to judge than TOC judges. The only problem is that if I’m your judge, you have to actually debate because I don’t decide winners based on silly techniques.
I just finished competing at my favorite tournament, Stanford, and for the 1st time I put myself in the Varsity Pool so that I could become more of an expert on the TOC style of debating. To my surprise every time the ballots were laid out, my name was no where to be found. But when you have a judge that has coached for 23 years and has coached students that have won at every tournament we attend (including Stanford) with the exception of the Varsity Division of Berkeley and the State tournament, wouldn’t you think that any school would be happy to have me as a judge – apparently not. However, because they were short on judges, I did happen to get a few varsity scraps and then I began to realize why I’m an outcast. I’m an LD traditionalist and most TOC debaters are merely fast talkers that spew out meaningless rhetoric.
What’s an LD traditionalist? It’s a judge that likes debaters that can defend their case and attack their opponent’s case in a structured manner. The TOC debaters that I have encountered no longer have the skills to refute arguments. Therefore, they spend most of their time using silly techniques in order to avoid debating like Off Cases, Spikes, Overviews, Underviews, and let’s not forget Spreading. To top it off, there are TOC judges and coaches encouraging these techniques so now it has become a norm. But if I’m judging the round, at least you know where you stand. If you can’t turn arguments or you continually avoid arguments, odds are you will lose my ballot. If it’s a TOC judge, you have a chance because all you need is one good argument to drop your opponent’s case. Never mind that your opponent supplied you with great examples, those examples no longer matter because in your Observation #24 you stated that “examples don’t matter.” Since your opponent didn’t contest it, you now win. How does this encourage good debating? Also, how do you pick a winner when both sides avoid arguing? Even the TOC judges can’t get it right half the time. With this style of debating, I firmly believe the TOC judge needs to intervene after both CX’s, and tell both debaters which arguments are most important so at least they know what the criteria is to win. When the round is over, most TOC debaters don’t even know why they won or lost the round. Even if you dominate your opponent, you could still lose because of Observation #24.
Now let’s look at the problem I saw with this latest topic, “Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.” Every time the Aff supplied solid reasoning as to why this it true, the Neg would run and hide from the examples and claim it didn’t matter. For example, terrorist have proven that they are dangerous so any nation harboring terrorist definitely shouldn’t be allowed to have access to nuclear weapons. Most Negs never wanted to touch this argument. How can you win a round if you can’t at least justify why a nation harboring terrorist should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? However, Negs were winning by claiming terrorist are not a part of the debate. Are you kidding me? Now let’s look to the Neg. The biggest example the Neg was using was the Iraq War as an example of the catastrophe you can create when you use hard power. Most Aff’s didn’t want any part of this example so they either ignored it or brought out a card that claimed hard power is always best. I squirreled in a round where I picked the Neg because they came the closest to a traditionalist, and the other two judges picked the Aff – even though the Aff dropped the Neg case – because the hard power card that was used cancelled out the Neg’s case. Once again, are you kidding me? How is it possible to win by avoiding arguments or speaking so fast that your opponent can’t catch everything? How is that even debating? Also, how does one argument knock out an entire case?
At any rate, I now feel I’m even more qualified to judge than TOC judges. The only problem is that if I’m your judge, you have to actually debate because I don’t decide winners based on silly techniques.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Cross Examination Strategy
February 1, 2008
This article will focus on how to use the CX in LD to your advantage. If you read the previous articles on how to build a case, this strategy will be based on those cases. The topic was “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” The Aff case focuses on Utilitarianism (the greater good for the greater number) and the Neg case focuses on Categorical Imperative (being just on both sides). Remember, before doing anything else, make sure you understand your opponent’s case. You must make sure you clarify everything you didn’t catch during their speech. Don’t let your ego cause you a defeat simply because you are too embarrassed to admit you didn’t hear everything. Hopefully it won’t take up all 3 minutes but if it does at least you know what you have to argue.
Next, it’s time for the feeler questions. Let’s see if your opponent really understands their case or are they simply just borrowing a teammate's case. Begin asking them to explain terminology and cards. A strategy I like here is if your opponent doesn’t know the meaning of certain words or cards, then you tell them what it means in a way that benefits you. For example, you have a categorized set of blocks and begin trapping your opponent into admitting that the cards they read fit into a certain block. To translate, I have several blocks or arguments proving why democracy is good. Since my opponent doesn’t fully understand the card he read for Categorical Imperative, I get him to admit that it’s simply just saying that democracy is bad. Now, all I need to do is show that democracy is good using one of my cards to defeat his card. Another one of my favorites is when you can get your opponent to admit that all the sub points he just read in his first contention can all fit into one category. All you need to do now is group all of those arguments together and defeat them with one argument. Finally, there is the sucker question. The Neg asks, “If I can give one example where democracy is unjust, do I win the round? The Aff answers, “Yes.” Now everything is based on one example and the cases no longer matter. Why are these feeler questions? If your opponent knows what he’s talking about, it’s going to be a challenging round because he isn’t going to answer the way that you would like. If he does fall into your trap, there’s a chance you can relax a little bit and have some fun at the same time.
Finally, it’s time for the best part. Only experienced debaters can usually do this part well because they actually understand their cases well enough to use set up questions. When we look to the Aff, it’s proving that democracy is the best form of government because it utilizes utilitarianism. You need to develop questions that prove this point. For example, is it easy to change laws in a democracy? How about in a dictatorship? When looking at all forms of existing governments, isn’t democracy the most just? If done right, these questions can help make your case stronger that utilitarian governments are best. Now look to the Neg. It’s proving that there is another form of government that is more just, categorical imperative. The problem is this form of government only exists in a utopian world. However, there is nothing wrong with striving to be perfect so these types of cases always have an appeal. Your questions need to find flaws in the status quo that the perfect society wouldn’t have to face. For example, couldn’t there be a style of government that’s better than utilitarian ideology? The resolution doesn’t say it has to actually exist does it? If the minority is continually outvoted, how is that just? Is the Patriot Act just even though it involves racial profiling? These questions can help set up the fact that injustices exist on one side and with categorical imperative it would happen less making it more just.
Hopefully this article has brought an awareness that there is a strategy to CX. It’s not just asking random questions to fill time. It’s about asking questions that all have a purpose.
This article will focus on how to use the CX in LD to your advantage. If you read the previous articles on how to build a case, this strategy will be based on those cases. The topic was “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” The Aff case focuses on Utilitarianism (the greater good for the greater number) and the Neg case focuses on Categorical Imperative (being just on both sides). Remember, before doing anything else, make sure you understand your opponent’s case. You must make sure you clarify everything you didn’t catch during their speech. Don’t let your ego cause you a defeat simply because you are too embarrassed to admit you didn’t hear everything. Hopefully it won’t take up all 3 minutes but if it does at least you know what you have to argue.
Next, it’s time for the feeler questions. Let’s see if your opponent really understands their case or are they simply just borrowing a teammate's case. Begin asking them to explain terminology and cards. A strategy I like here is if your opponent doesn’t know the meaning of certain words or cards, then you tell them what it means in a way that benefits you. For example, you have a categorized set of blocks and begin trapping your opponent into admitting that the cards they read fit into a certain block. To translate, I have several blocks or arguments proving why democracy is good. Since my opponent doesn’t fully understand the card he read for Categorical Imperative, I get him to admit that it’s simply just saying that democracy is bad. Now, all I need to do is show that democracy is good using one of my cards to defeat his card. Another one of my favorites is when you can get your opponent to admit that all the sub points he just read in his first contention can all fit into one category. All you need to do now is group all of those arguments together and defeat them with one argument. Finally, there is the sucker question. The Neg asks, “If I can give one example where democracy is unjust, do I win the round? The Aff answers, “Yes.” Now everything is based on one example and the cases no longer matter. Why are these feeler questions? If your opponent knows what he’s talking about, it’s going to be a challenging round because he isn’t going to answer the way that you would like. If he does fall into your trap, there’s a chance you can relax a little bit and have some fun at the same time.
Finally, it’s time for the best part. Only experienced debaters can usually do this part well because they actually understand their cases well enough to use set up questions. When we look to the Aff, it’s proving that democracy is the best form of government because it utilizes utilitarianism. You need to develop questions that prove this point. For example, is it easy to change laws in a democracy? How about in a dictatorship? When looking at all forms of existing governments, isn’t democracy the most just? If done right, these questions can help make your case stronger that utilitarian governments are best. Now look to the Neg. It’s proving that there is another form of government that is more just, categorical imperative. The problem is this form of government only exists in a utopian world. However, there is nothing wrong with striving to be perfect so these types of cases always have an appeal. Your questions need to find flaws in the status quo that the perfect society wouldn’t have to face. For example, couldn’t there be a style of government that’s better than utilitarian ideology? The resolution doesn’t say it has to actually exist does it? If the minority is continually outvoted, how is that just? Is the Patriot Act just even though it involves racial profiling? These questions can help set up the fact that injustices exist on one side and with categorical imperative it would happen less making it more just.
Hopefully this article has brought an awareness that there is a strategy to CX. It’s not just asking random questions to fill time. It’s about asking questions that all have a purpose.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Constructing a Negative Case
November 1, 2007
Once again we stay with the formula. This big principle + This smaller Principle = The big picture rather than the conclusion. Just a little change because this case is shorter considering you must also rebut the Aff’s case – remember that. Since it is shorter, it needs to pack a big punch rather quickly and succinctly. You also don’t have to worry about adding a contention that’s a direct clash to the Aff because you are going to do that anyway in your rebuttal. Some debaters make the mistake of making a long Neg case and end up dropping the Aff case during the Neg Constructive because they run out of time. It’s always good to limit the Neg case to one or two contentions. For my example, I will use two contentions but you can easily do the same thing with one contention and two subpoints.
Once again we are using the topic: “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” My Paramount Value will be Justice defined as giving each his due. My Value Criterion or Standard for the round will be Categorical Comparative where one must be just on both sides. In other words, the means and the ends must be just. I will agree with the Aff’s definitions. Unlike the Aff, this case is at a disadvantage because it’s depicting an ideal that doesn’t exist.
Just like the Aff case, the first contention should center around the Paramount Value of Justice. Since Justice is used a majority of the time in most cases, you want to make sure you use different methods of analyzation in your cases so you don’t get repetitive from one case to the next. For this topic we want to know why it is good to have a just government? What are the benefits? For example, a just society could be a more productive one. It could also be a safer one. The key is realizing that you are explaining a utopian society. This is the (This big principle) part of the formula.
(This contention relates to the Paramount Value – Justice)
Contention I – A legitimate government should strive to be just.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
The second contention must illustrate how the smaller principle can enhance the big picture. It focuses on the Value Criterion. The judge needs to understand that with categorical imperative I can obtain a just society unlike my opponent who needs to acknowledge the majority can be wrong. If a government were to actually utilize categorical imperative, that would mean that it couldn’t use people as a means to an end. With this philosophy, the minority is always protected. If presented correctly, this contention could set up the idea that this ideology is what a government should have been based on in the first place. Remember, the problem is there are no real life examples that can benefit the Neg. Thus, the only strategy is to seek flaws with utilitarianism and hope the judge buys it. For example, slavery wouldn’t have existed and all legal aged citizens would have been given the right to vote from the very beginning.
(This contention relates to the Value Criterion – Categorical Imperative)
Contention II – Utilizing Categorical Imperative brings about true justice.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
This of course is not saying that all cases need to be set up this way. It’s simply one method that has proven to be successful over time. The key is being able to do it without being repetitive. Regardless of what method you develop, you definitely need to make sure your arguments all link to values. It’s also very important you make sure the judge gets the big picture to increase your chances of winning. What I like about these cases is it allows for some in depth analysis of a topic rather than simply stacking cards on top of cards.
Once again we stay with the formula. This big principle + This smaller Principle = The big picture rather than the conclusion. Just a little change because this case is shorter considering you must also rebut the Aff’s case – remember that. Since it is shorter, it needs to pack a big punch rather quickly and succinctly. You also don’t have to worry about adding a contention that’s a direct clash to the Aff because you are going to do that anyway in your rebuttal. Some debaters make the mistake of making a long Neg case and end up dropping the Aff case during the Neg Constructive because they run out of time. It’s always good to limit the Neg case to one or two contentions. For my example, I will use two contentions but you can easily do the same thing with one contention and two subpoints.
Once again we are using the topic: “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” My Paramount Value will be Justice defined as giving each his due. My Value Criterion or Standard for the round will be Categorical Comparative where one must be just on both sides. In other words, the means and the ends must be just. I will agree with the Aff’s definitions. Unlike the Aff, this case is at a disadvantage because it’s depicting an ideal that doesn’t exist.
Just like the Aff case, the first contention should center around the Paramount Value of Justice. Since Justice is used a majority of the time in most cases, you want to make sure you use different methods of analyzation in your cases so you don’t get repetitive from one case to the next. For this topic we want to know why it is good to have a just government? What are the benefits? For example, a just society could be a more productive one. It could also be a safer one. The key is realizing that you are explaining a utopian society. This is the (This big principle) part of the formula.
(This contention relates to the Paramount Value – Justice)
Contention I – A legitimate government should strive to be just.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
The second contention must illustrate how the smaller principle can enhance the big picture. It focuses on the Value Criterion. The judge needs to understand that with categorical imperative I can obtain a just society unlike my opponent who needs to acknowledge the majority can be wrong. If a government were to actually utilize categorical imperative, that would mean that it couldn’t use people as a means to an end. With this philosophy, the minority is always protected. If presented correctly, this contention could set up the idea that this ideology is what a government should have been based on in the first place. Remember, the problem is there are no real life examples that can benefit the Neg. Thus, the only strategy is to seek flaws with utilitarianism and hope the judge buys it. For example, slavery wouldn’t have existed and all legal aged citizens would have been given the right to vote from the very beginning.
(This contention relates to the Value Criterion – Categorical Imperative)
Contention II – Utilizing Categorical Imperative brings about true justice.
A. Card or example of how this is true.
B. Card or example of how this is true.
This of course is not saying that all cases need to be set up this way. It’s simply one method that has proven to be successful over time. The key is being able to do it without being repetitive. Regardless of what method you develop, you definitely need to make sure your arguments all link to values. It’s also very important you make sure the judge gets the big picture to increase your chances of winning. What I like about these cases is it allows for some in depth analysis of a topic rather than simply stacking cards on top of cards.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Affirmative Case Construction
October 1, 2007
I’m sure there are many theories on how to build a case but the method I’m going to show you is a proven winner. Just like math, you need to find a formula that works. But remember, you are not only competing with your opponent but the judge as well. If they are lost or confused, you may lose regardless of whether you destroyed your opponent. There’s two ways to make a case. You either use deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the worse way because you are assuming too much. By the 4th or 5th round, your judge may be too tired to figure out what you are talking about. Therefore, the better way is deductive reasoning. Usually it is This + This = That. But for me, it’s This + Not This = That. It’s basically the same formula but I’ll explain more as we go. So let’s begin.
The topic this case would work well with is “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” For this article, I’ll show you how to construct the Aff case and my next article will focus on the Neg case. So let’s pick our values. My paramount value will be Democratic Principles where you utilize the majority rule theory. My value criterion or standard will be Utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater number. As I said before, don’t let anyone tell you that my standard is abusive simply because the Neg can’t use it. That is merely a theory but it is not fact. Now let’s look at our definitions. “Government” will be defined as a type of political system. “Based” will be defined as the main component or ingredient of something. Finally, “Utilitarianism” will be defined as the greater good for the greater number. Realize that the Aff has a huge advantage because the debate is taking place in the US where we have a democracy.
Basically, once you have picked your values the case is already made. All you need to do is find facts and examples to support your reasoning. The first contention should deal with the Paramount Value. This is an opportunity for you to actually give an analysis as to why Democracy is a good thing. For example, it allows for peace and a market place of ideas. You want the judge to have an understanding of what do you get with Democratic Principles. If you choose to do Subpoints, you can either make them unique or basically the same. For example, Subpoint A could be a philosopher explaining the value of democracy and Subpoint B could be an actual example of how it works. This is not the same as simply arguing Democratic Principles at the top of your case. It’s your job to make sure you don’t get repetitive and make sure that the first Contention does not just simply repeat what you said about Democratic Principles during the values debate.
(This Contention relates to the Paramount Value – Democratic Principles)
Contention I – Democratic Principles promote societal good.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true
The second contention should present a clear argument as to why the Neg can’t win. All you need to do is give examples of other forms of governments that are unjust. For example, Communism or a Dictatorship. Simple right? This allows the judge to see why it would be better to go with the Aff as opposed to the Neg. And just like in the first contention, you can apply Subpoints where each gives a specific reason or example illustrating why this is true. The reason I call this the “Not This” contention is because it shows what could happen if the Neg wins which can’t happen, and if it’s a good argument and the judge buys it – it could greatly improve your chances of winning.
(This Contention explains why other forms of government won’t work. Thus, the Neg can’t win for this very reason)
Contention II – Other forms of government have injustices.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B - Card or example of how this is true.
The third contention should be based on the most important argument which is the standard or criterion. This should illustrate how it’s possible to achieve your paramount value. Here, I’m trying to show that with Utilitarianism you have the best chance to right a wrong simply because most people are moral. For example, women now have the right to vote and we no longer have separate but equal. This is really why the judge needs to vote for you. The key is again not to make it repetitive with contention I. The more emotional the better because you want the judge to clearly understand why you should win. The point of this contention is to show that if the majority of people are indeed moral, then we are better off using Democratic Principles.
(This contention relates to the standard – Utilitarianism)
Contention III – Utilitarianism allows for morality.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true.
Like I said, there are many ways of doing it but at least with this formula you no longer have to worry about your opponent or your judge wondering how each contention links to your standard. Also, you want your opponent to have to beat you on three levels as opposed to one. If every contention dealt with utilitarianism, all you would need is one good argument to destroy the case. With this formula, the Neg has to refute three different arguments to gain an edge.
I’m sure there are many theories on how to build a case but the method I’m going to show you is a proven winner. Just like math, you need to find a formula that works. But remember, you are not only competing with your opponent but the judge as well. If they are lost or confused, you may lose regardless of whether you destroyed your opponent. There’s two ways to make a case. You either use deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the worse way because you are assuming too much. By the 4th or 5th round, your judge may be too tired to figure out what you are talking about. Therefore, the better way is deductive reasoning. Usually it is This + This = That. But for me, it’s This + Not This = That. It’s basically the same formula but I’ll explain more as we go. So let’s begin.
The topic this case would work well with is “Resolved: The best form of government is one that is based on Utilitarianism.” For this article, I’ll show you how to construct the Aff case and my next article will focus on the Neg case. So let’s pick our values. My paramount value will be Democratic Principles where you utilize the majority rule theory. My value criterion or standard will be Utilitarianism which is the greater good for the greater number. As I said before, don’t let anyone tell you that my standard is abusive simply because the Neg can’t use it. That is merely a theory but it is not fact. Now let’s look at our definitions. “Government” will be defined as a type of political system. “Based” will be defined as the main component or ingredient of something. Finally, “Utilitarianism” will be defined as the greater good for the greater number. Realize that the Aff has a huge advantage because the debate is taking place in the US where we have a democracy.
Basically, once you have picked your values the case is already made. All you need to do is find facts and examples to support your reasoning. The first contention should deal with the Paramount Value. This is an opportunity for you to actually give an analysis as to why Democracy is a good thing. For example, it allows for peace and a market place of ideas. You want the judge to have an understanding of what do you get with Democratic Principles. If you choose to do Subpoints, you can either make them unique or basically the same. For example, Subpoint A could be a philosopher explaining the value of democracy and Subpoint B could be an actual example of how it works. This is not the same as simply arguing Democratic Principles at the top of your case. It’s your job to make sure you don’t get repetitive and make sure that the first Contention does not just simply repeat what you said about Democratic Principles during the values debate.
(This Contention relates to the Paramount Value – Democratic Principles)
Contention I – Democratic Principles promote societal good.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true
The second contention should present a clear argument as to why the Neg can’t win. All you need to do is give examples of other forms of governments that are unjust. For example, Communism or a Dictatorship. Simple right? This allows the judge to see why it would be better to go with the Aff as opposed to the Neg. And just like in the first contention, you can apply Subpoints where each gives a specific reason or example illustrating why this is true. The reason I call this the “Not This” contention is because it shows what could happen if the Neg wins which can’t happen, and if it’s a good argument and the judge buys it – it could greatly improve your chances of winning.
(This Contention explains why other forms of government won’t work. Thus, the Neg can’t win for this very reason)
Contention II – Other forms of government have injustices.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B - Card or example of how this is true.
The third contention should be based on the most important argument which is the standard or criterion. This should illustrate how it’s possible to achieve your paramount value. Here, I’m trying to show that with Utilitarianism you have the best chance to right a wrong simply because most people are moral. For example, women now have the right to vote and we no longer have separate but equal. This is really why the judge needs to vote for you. The key is again not to make it repetitive with contention I. The more emotional the better because you want the judge to clearly understand why you should win. The point of this contention is to show that if the majority of people are indeed moral, then we are better off using Democratic Principles.
(This contention relates to the standard – Utilitarianism)
Contention III – Utilitarianism allows for morality.
Subpoint A – Card or Example of how this is true.
Subpoint B – Card or Example of how this is true.
Like I said, there are many ways of doing it but at least with this formula you no longer have to worry about your opponent or your judge wondering how each contention links to your standard. Also, you want your opponent to have to beat you on three levels as opposed to one. If every contention dealt with utilitarianism, all you would need is one good argument to destroy the case. With this formula, the Neg has to refute three different arguments to gain an edge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
