Case Construction Tactics

www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]

Case Construction and Tactics

Meredith Prior


Case Constructions

Basic Issues•Define the motion - work out the key words•Model •Who are you - your world view•What is the problem and are you solving it?•Who are the stakeholders - have you got arguments covering all participants•What are the possible responses to your case, can you minimise the attack?


Case ConstructionsModels

•What are they?•Major question:

–Who, Where, When, How

•Three options - TWS legalise the sale of organs–Use someone else’s–Use someone else’s and add to it–Think of a whole new one

•Where should it come?•How should it be used?• Example: TWS introduce compulsory military service


Case Constructions

Who are you•You should always think about what sort of person you are in the debate•If you understand your world view - i.e. how you see the world it helps you be more consistent in your position


Case Constructions

Stakeholders•Who are the people affected by the debate?•How are they affected?•How to create an argument around them:

–Will this be good/bad for them–Why is their position in the debate important

•Eg - TWS introduce national paid parental leave


Case Constructions

Negative Team StanceThree Options1. Deny the Problem & Support the Status Quo2. Agree with the Problem & Propose an Alternative

Solution3. Accept the Problem & Argue that the Affirmative’s

will do more harm than good (implicitly supporting the Status Quo)


Tactics

Hard/Soft Lines•Most debates will give you several options as to how to proceed - “lines”•Soft line - a small change to the status quo•Hard line - a substantial change to the status quo•Example: TWS legalise drugs:

–Soft line - legalising soft drugs such as marijuana to those addicted.–Hard line - legalising all drugs to everyone (of all ages) and they can buy as much as they want.

•Lines will dictate the amount of arguments you have and the strength of your position


Tactics

Hard/Soft Lines II•The harder the line the more philosophically consistent you, but the more crazy you sound - the more harms may be produced by your model•The softer the line, the more questionable you are on the principle, but you may sound more reasonable. •The best position is to be somewhere in the middle- how to judge - laugh test!•Exercise:

–TWS legalise the sale of organs


Tactics

Problem-Solution Gap•Every debate has an affirmative team trying to solve a problem (many debates will also include a negative team also trying to solve a problem).•Teams must ensure that the size of the problem matches the size of their solution - the problem is more likely to occur when a team proposes a soft model eg:

–TWS legalise drugs•Problem: Huge addiction rates to harmful drugs that kill people - need to minimise harm•Solution: Legalise marijuana to addicts


Tactics

Problem-Solution Gap II•It can happen in reverse too - TWS take tougher action on climate change:

–Problem: Countries not taking action to get a binding treaty on climate change–Solution: Invading countries who do not try and sign a treaty

•How to exploit:–Oppositions should attack the case as being unable to effectively make inroads on the problem they themselves wanted to tackle. –The opp can propose an alternative that improves only marginally on the prop but be more effective


Tactics

Prioritisation of Matter•Who are you in the debate?•Philosophical position - YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS!•Owning your principles - I.e. torture debate - recognise torture is not great, but there are important principles of balancing harms•Know your weakness and try and tackle it early -

–TWS cut off welfare to parents whose children do not attend school regularly


Case ConstructionsExercise

THW ban labour unions•Define the motion - work out the key words•Model •Who are you - your world view•What is the problem and are you solving it?•Who are the stakeholders - have you got arguments covering all participants•What are the possible responses to your case, can you minimise the attack?

Education

Case Construction Tactics