A Guide to Winning Debate Case Strategies Jason Sandford, Assistant Northwest University Debate Coach, former coach of La Verne University Debate Team. Manila folder-files for Topic Preparation and Development. Each folder-file can store up to 30 topic areas. With two folder-files, you can cover 30 frequent topic areas and 30 new topic areas. Background briefs are on white paper, and case positions are on heavy-stock yellow paper (perhaps, goldenrod). This allows for rapid case prep. and easy consideration of choices. It helps relax students at a time when they need to concentrate on case preparation. The following information builds on this base of preparation. It is divided into two areas: creating effective background briefs and preparing specific cases. Creating Effective Background Briefs Monitor Economist research website to evaluate topic area frequency. This helps keep the edge on research. Remember that the Economist, as an information clearing house, uses only the best sources and the best information. The Economist holds its reporters to a very high standard, and you can see this when you look at what it talks about. The follows categories are all used. After a while, you can scan an article and highlight key talking points. Over time, with 4 or 5 articles to review on a specific topic, you can see an intellectual chain of development. This guide talks about how to mine this information for a rich bounty of usable and winning supporting proofs. When forming background briefs, look to specifics in the following manner. I call these specifics "Diamonds in the Rough". Each serves as a persuasive tool to win a point, and should have stand alone qualities. A Diamond in the rough, by definition, is a tool which you use throughout the round: it stands out in the round, giving meaning and shape to the entire debate. It is a hammer with which to nail the door closed. The other team needs a competing form of proof to win this specific area of the debate. I will discuss five such powerful tools. Prime Examples--Representative example which allows development and detailed intensity. If talking about nuclear power, refer to Three Mile Island. Create a mental picture which can't be denied. Evaluate the impact of nuclear meltdown in urban areas, possible power grid failures, and terrorist attacks. Use as a form of soft support: my argument is more real than yours. My argument is grounded in the reality of historic fact. Theory is fine, you might say, but look to the clarity of proven example. When synthesized with other ideas in the round, such proof comes to life. When looking at any Economist article, it usually has at least one such example. Such examples, when searched for systematically, stand out like a sore thumb. Find them and use them. A good example, planted in the Opening speech, can be used as a link story to a related series of examples in the member speech. Take the lesson of the example and provide 3-5 additional examples. Be sure to have good examples, yes, but focus on extending the impact of the prime example on the entire round. This is a form of argument extension, and allows the member speaker to have a clear strategy and new material for the debate. It also sets up the rebuttal speech for a sweeping review of primary arguments, delicately sprinkling a series of examples already developed in the round. Established Institutions--All the world is a stage, according to Shakespeare, and every topic area has a cast of players. In modern life, institutions are major players (just as much as any iconic human figure, like JFK or MLK). Problems and solutions have causes and effects, and any plan needs to use an infrastructure to foster implementation and effectiveness. For example, on racial discrimination, look to the NAACP. On human rights, look to the ACLU. On economic growth, look to the FRB (Federal Reserve Bank). Each major institution has a history and level of credibility attached to it. Such attachments lead to either good or bad impressions. If you have a good institution on your side, that adds real credibility to your position. If you paint a picture of the problem with a specific institution as bad, it can be easy to offer the alternative of a good institution. Throughout the middle of the debate, it is a contest to see who paints the best picture, who provides the best contrast of opposites. Even a bad institution is better than a really bad institution. Besides, you can argue, this bad institution is just misguided (great goals, but bad policies) and plan provides a change in policies. Looking to institutions allows for great debate over who should work for us. Complex topics thrive on such elements, since they provide concrete expectations. For example, in Europe, talking about the European Court of Justice, you know the intent of such an institution is to protect human rights. It is held to an institutional-standard of being a torch bearer for a particular cause or point of view. Regardless of the specific issue in contest, you might say, "we all know that the ECJ wants to create a better Europe for the future, a future built on law, order, and public safety, etc. It can be used as a moral whip, and even a very big stick: "It has worked for the last 300 years in America, now is the time to have a written constitution and federal protection in different regions of a large mega-state like Europe". Startling Statistics--Statistics are a lawyer's best friend: lies, damned lies, and statistics (as the old saying goes). Use them whenever possible. For example, "according to the UN, 10 million babies are born each year in Africa with HIV. We are creating a generation of people born into misery and forced to live a life thay they didn't choose. If we don't act, you know that in our life time, hundreds of millions of people will suffer. Now is the time to act, before 10 million more babies are born into such misery and suffering. Our plan does this by..." It is hard for any student to counter such evidence directly, and it is always good to force the other team to take an usual position. If they offer a counterplan, fine, since they grant the need to change. Now the debate is over the best solution, and an evaluation of net benefits. If you have equally good statistics to support your plan's effectiveness, the other team has a tough road ahead of it, especially if you look to institutions and examples elsewhere to enhance your position. Elevate the debate on a deep level of investigation, and speaker points and winning ballots will flow your way. Authoritative Testimony--Reputation is beyond the price of rubies, it has been said, and speaker credibility depends upon it, especially in a close round (often the rounds which must be won late in prelims or during playoff elimination). Testimony in parliamentary debate works well when speakers refer to personalities which an educated person should know, like Alan Greenspan, FRB Chairman. Using testimony from Greenspan that the housing market is overheated, boardering on bubble-like status with the potential for a massive crash and dangerous implications for destroying a strong economic recovery, is very effective. Critics can believe what you say; you can draw upon the speaker's credibility and proven history of effective policymaking. Testimony is very hard proof, much like statistics. Testimony, however, has the ability to share soft-proof characteristics. Always look to at least two authorities to promote your position, if possible, and blend it with other forms of proof. People like Ralph Nader speak to a cause, and referring to their ideas carries useful weight. People like Elliot Spitzer, NY Attorney General responsible for identifying and prosecuting the parties responsible for pension fund and mutual fund fraud, would be ideal in any debate over monitoring the financial world. Also, when researching, realize that such people tend to have great policy proposals and critiques. They are on top of the issues, and you can use there knowledge to strengthen you case positions. With good case preparation, you aren't reinventing the wheel; rather, you are drawing upon pre-existing ideas already substantially developed by leading experts and authorities in a specific field. Concrete Policies and Proposals--Policies and proposals are at the heart of any case position. Editorials, by definition, push for and against specific policies and proposals. Look to such articles for clarity and understanding: what is on the table, what are our choices, what has worked and what has failed. This is the world of case statements: a clear, contestable value-position statement or policy platform. For example, specific to freedom of information, you can talk about the British Government's Official Secrets Act, and the ban on press coverage of the alleged U.S./U.K. discussion to bomb the headquarters of Al-Jazeera. You refer to this specific ban, and propose lifting it. Another clear example of policy and proposal would be control of the internet. You can talk about the recent decision by the U.S. to maintain exclusive supervisory authority over the internet through ICANN. You refer to this decision, and argue that the U.S. needs to share supervisory authority with other leading contributors to the development of the internet. When you know what is on the table, you are better prepared to advocate any given position. Indeed, you know where the opposition might go in terms of counterplans. You know what is and is not competitive to your proposal, and what has or has not worked in the past. Combined with effective coverage of examples, institutions, statistics, testimony, clear policy and proposal awareness brings everything together into a coherent whole: narrative story-telling which resonates with the mind of the judge and appeals to rational decision-making on multiple levels of evaluation. Preparing specific cases After you have prepared effective background briefs, the important work of preparing specific cases begins. First, this section will discuss how to construct cases using a specific format and technique. Second, this section will provide a clear practice drill format and technique designed to enhance case design and flexible enough to adapt to the preparation schedules of individual team members. Case Construction: Strategic Adaptation to Casing Opportunities Solid Case Construction skills are fundamental to consistency and effective policy-formation. Structure and organization guides the process from beginning to end. Effectiveness during the first speech allows for and facilitates effectiveness in the middle speech and the rebuttal speech. When dealing with a 7 minute opening speech, for example, break down the case into two parts: Top of Case and Case Proper. Top of Case deals with a topic overview and resolution analysis. It also deals with the case statement and any decision-making criteria. Case Proper deals with the arguments presented to defend and justify your case statement. Top of Case is very important. It can end up as the reason why a judge votes a particular way. It is the basis for government advocacy and an obligation of the government team. Top of case should consume no more than 2 minutes of a 7 minute speech. A clear method of division looks to two obligations: resolutional analysis and case statement (each should take no more than 1 minute). Resolutional Analysis--Resolutional analysis serves as an introduction to the topic and as a framework for the case itself. The student needs to define key terms, and explain the nature of the contested issue. From a world where 5 or 10 different cases may be argued, the speaker needs to present the basis for justifying any one of these cases. For example, if the resolution states" THBT the U.S. Supreme Court Should protect abortion rights," the speaker would define key terms like U.S. Supreme Court, Protect, and Abortion Rights. With this said, the student would move forward by saying the underlying issue in question is the defense of the common good, and the role of the Supreme Court in promoting and protecting that common good. Moving forward in this way allows the speaker to direct the nature of decision-making along specific lines of analysis (if the opposition attacks criteria elsewhere in the debate, you have an existing goal in place to justify your criteria and, if done well, dejustify their criteria). The speaker then asserts that a number of cases dealing with abortion might be argued, but in this case the government wishes to deal with a current case already on the Supreme Court Docket for Judicial Review: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. Case Statement--Case Statements represent the specific position the government will argue. It must specify a policy or proposal it wishes to change or adopt to justify the resolution. A good case statement is a simple, declarative sentence: The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. Another example would be from the policy world of nuclear energy or american imperialism: The Bush Administration should accept Hugo Chavez's proposal to build 10 nuclear energy facilities in Venezuela, consistent with existing Nonproliferation Treaty obligations. Depending on the wording of the resolution, the above two examples can serve as bi-directional positions: the student has casing strategies either way. For example, The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold the lower court decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood; and, Congress should pass a joint-resolution of condemnation against Hugo Chavez's proposal to build 10 nuclear energy facilities. With a clear case statement in place, the speaker would present necessary plan details (funding details, aspects of plan formation, etc.) For example, in Ayotte, the Supreme Court would uphold the right to emergency health abortions without parental notification if a Doctor deems it necessary to protect the patient's health (even if the health emergency isn't yet deemed a life or death issue). After the case statement and plan presentation, the speaker provides criteria for evaluating the arguments in the round ("we look to cost-benefit analysis, and whoever best defends the common good should win"; "America has a great history of defending human rights, and whoever does the most to defend the sanctity of Constitution Protections should win"; etc.) Case Proper is the heart of advocacy. Once top of case issues have been addressed, the student jumps straight into argument development. A strong case should have 3 to 5 arguments, allowing approximately 1 minute for each argument. Areas of argument can look to generic issues like economics, democracy, social welfare, etc. One good debater I knew from Johns Hopkins University loved to use the SPIRE TECHNIQUE: Social, Political, International, Religious, and Economic. It worked very well for him, resulting in winning the Princeton Tournament and making it to outrounds at the World Championships. I also enjoyed the technique, and expanded it to TEMPLE & SPIRE: Technology, Environment, Military, Philosophy, Law, and Education (TEMPLE). And, of course, Social, Political, International, Religious, and Economic (SPIRE). Between the two, a speaker can cover most bases, and stimulate specific areas of argument along distinct lines of analysis. Such makes for varied arguments, and allows for good argument selection opportunities. In addition, a speaker can attempt to anticipate opposition areas of attack. Case Proper can be done effectively, in a number of ways. However, I like the following basic model for case construction: at a minimum, 3 clear and distinct arguments. By preference, 4 or 5 arguments--with three major arguments, and up to 2 secondary positions. The order of arguments is important. A student should try to start strong and end strong; thus, the strongest arguments should be placed first and last, with the third major argument placed in the middle. Secondary arguments would be shorter than major arguments, strategically placed between the other arguments in the round: major, secondary, major, secondary, major. This allows for dynamic movement during the speech, and forces opposition teams to be selective in time management and argument placement. Coming up with two strong arguments should be easy, and the strategy here caters to this fact. A good method is to always have a warm and fluffy argument in the middle of the debate as a major argument (Plan promotes democracy and social welfare). Such an argument is major for the round (if you don't have any moral high ground with your case, you might not want to run it), but it should not represent one of your best arguments (placed first and last). Positioning three arguments, then, should become a standard expectation of any case. With this said, other arguments of merit in the round are placed between these major arguments. They are short and to the point, acting mainly as Shell Argument (link, brink, impact). Don't focus on impacts, just get an impact on paper for discussion. The strategy here leaves the judge wanting more, but still very happy with impact development on the three primary arguments. The member speaker, however, will use this lower-level of development as a basis for member development and expansion during the round. Such structure empowers both team members during the debate as a whole. While 5 minutes allows for 1 minute on each argument, most cases should result in only 30 seconds to 45 seconds on secondary arguments, and 60 seconds to 75 seconds on major arguments. This being said, however, until final argument selection and ordering is finalized, each argument can be viewed as a 60 second persuasive opportunity--utilizing Diamonds in the Rough for supporting proof (representative examples, established institutions, startling statistics, authoritative testimony, and concrete policy references). Practice Makes Perfect: practice drills and techniques The following practice drill has a number of potential names, like King of the Hill, but in this case I prefer to go with "The Common Touch." Such a reference refers to the concepts of a former British Civil Servant, Cabinet Member, Oxford Union President, and, ultimately, Member of the House of Lords. Success in Parliament, he stated, depended upon the ability to reach out to the public as a whole, and move the minds and hearts of the common people (the vast majority of society). In practice, your goal is to develop this "Common Touch" and strive for it in every argument you present. If you can do it well in only 60 seconds, you are likely to be listened to and heard. This section will provide a flexible framework for practice which helps each speaker develop and master the Common Touch principle: speaking to the people and for the people, in the most compelling and persuasive manner possible in a limited amount of time. The Common Touch Drill breaks each section of a speech down to 60 second blocks. Students can work individually or collectively, depending upon the number of students available. If possible, each student handles one 60 second block (Resolutional Analysis or Argument I, for example). A stronger student, however, especially when practice members are limited in availability, can always present more than one block. For example, present Resolutional Analysis, and, after other students participate, present Argument IV or V. Whatever works, given the supply of available students. After the block presentations, students discuss notes and ideas with each other. What worked best? What could be stronger? Which argument stood out most and why? Did the speaker really do justice to the evidence presented in the round. Normally, strengths and weaknesses will emerge, and students will learn how to better prioritize time allocation and package ideas with persuasive eloquence. Also, students can swap blocks for future feedback (I will rewrite your argument and you will rewrite my argument; afterwards, we will draw upon the strengths of both presentations). After all, a finished case with plan and arguments is available for all team members to argue at future tournaments. In future practice sessions, students can compare flow sheets and discuss how other teams handled the arguments, and evaluate what did and did not work in the mind of the judges. Ideally, practice sessions will involve a sizable amount of students. Having 10 to 20 students in a practice session is not impossible, and, quite frankly, is to be encouraged. However, this does not mean that only 4 to 7 students participate. Floor Speeches are designed to allow everybody to participate. Audience members should expect to present a 60 second floor speech, and make an argument nobody else has discussed. Also, a floor speaker can present an alternative support for a 60 second argument already being discussed. Diamonds, it is good to remember, have many faces and many charming beauties. It would not be unusual for two students to persuasively justify the same argument with different types of supporting material. Just remember that evaluation still looks to the same standards of quality and detail (be it a floor speech or a case speech). Based upon the back-and-forth of practice, students will end an 1-hour session with clear arguments and a solid case strategy. A good three-hour session can lead to 3 cases, plus ideas for future cases at the next practice session. At the end of every session, however, students should plan who will be responsible for taking all of the positions discussed and creating a simple, one-page yellow-sheet case strategy. Such responsibility should rotate fairly between team members. After all, practice makes perfect. In conclusion, every student should be encouraged to move beyond the basics. Every student should be open to outstanding displays of substance and style. The synergy of this form of collective learning should empower participants to aim for and achieve eloquence-in-action. Eloquence, like a diamond, is born rough; but with polish and practice becomes more beautiful than one could ever have imagined. Good luck with your research and case preparation.