Case Writing
In LD, you will need to present your side of the resolution and also attack the
other side. In their first speech, both sides should present their case. Their
case contains the arguments that defend your side. This is basically how a case
is structured:
Definitions
The definitions are usually presented by the affirmative side. The only terms
that really have to be defined are some of the key words in the resolution.
Although it is usually not necessary to debate definitions, it is important that
definitions are presented early so that there is no dispute about it later.
Definitions should be fair to both sides, all it is supposed to do is to clarify
the resolution. However, sometimes awkward or biased definitions are presented
and in that case it would be a good idea to debate about it and get it clarified.
Observations
These aren't absolutely necessary in a debate round. Observations are, basically,
what it sounds like. They're your observations on what types of limits should
be put on the resolution. Like definitions, these should be fair to both sides,
but if someone brings up bogus observations, by all means debate it. Some people
attack it by saying, "it's not stated in the resolution." In my opinion, that's
one of the dumbest things someone can say. Observations are limitations, clarifications,
or implications that you think are appropriate. Also, depending on the region
in which you debate, some people use the observations to state their value and
value criteria. That is totally fine, and in that case, you will have to debate
the observation because you have to (or at least should) be debating about the
value clash.
Value
The value in LD is usually considered the standard for weighing the debate round.
Throughout the debate, you must successfully defend your value while attacking
your opponents value. Some values often used are justice, morality, utilitarianism,
etc. In your case, you must choose a value to use. Remember to define your value
and tell why it is good and relevant to the resolution. There are several ways you can attack a value. First, you can use the
"subsuming" method. Basically, you show that your value is more broad than your
opponent's, and that just acheiving their value is not enough. Therefore by
upholding your value, you can acheive what they get in their value, and so much
more. (by the way be careful using this. i dont particularly suggest saying that acheiving yours will acheive theirs too) Another way to attack someone's value is by questioning the links between
their value, value criteria (see below), and their arguments. I personally believe that this is one of the
strongest ways to attack. Basically, you show that their arguments do not uphold
their value and value criteria, or that their arguments are irrelavent to their value. For instance,
if their value was justice, you can demonstrate how their arguments do not uphold
or are irrelavent to justice. These are just some examples, this is not the only
way to debate values. Don't just stick to these methods, go ahead and try others
and see what you feel confortable with, the more you try, the more flexible you
will be in your rounds.
Value Criterion
There are two interpretations on the role of the value criterion (or value criteria).
First, is that it is a stepping stone to your value. Values are generally quite
broad, so the value criterion can narrow it down a little bit by showing how you
are going to reach your value. Another interpretation of the role of the value
criterion is that it is a measuring stick of the value. For example if your value
was justice again, your value criterion might be natural rights. Depending on
how you define natural rights, you might say that the more rights you have, the
more justice you have. In that instance, we used rights to measure how much justice
we have. Basically, the value criterion is there to help uphold your value. Some
examples of value criteria are natural rights, liberty, individualism, etc. Like
the value, you have to defend and attack, and you can do it with the same techniques
used on the values.
Contentions
A contention is basically a fancy word for an argument. Contentions are the main
arguments that support your value, value criteria, and ultimately your side of the
resolution. Don't be fooled if someone gives it a different name. Some people
call it a justification, realm of discussion, point of interest, or, like me
occationally, simply main point. They all serve the same purpose, to provide
the meat of your case. Usually it is beneficial to have several arguments, and
many of these arguments are often similar or related. It might be a little
repetitive to make them separate contentions, so you can divide contentions up
into subpoints. I highly recommend doing this for beginners. I have experimented with
several styles and variations of cases and subpoints just make cases a lot clearer
and easier to understand. Remember, no matter how good your argument is, your
judge must be able to understand what you are talking about. Beyond that, there
really is no set restrictions on how you must write your contentions. A good writer and speaker
will always remember to include evidence and analysis. While evidence is not necessary,
it definitely adds credibility to your argumentation. But remember
that you are using your value and value criteria to prove your side, so it would
be a very good idea to include, wherever possible, links to your value and value criteria, showing how the
argument supports your value criteria, which supports your value which in turn supports your side.
Also remember that when you are writing a case, don't just spew out arguements like there's not tomorrow.
Cases are most effective when you have a basic idea - or platform if you will - that threads your
case together. Even if your opponent knocks down some of your specific arguements, sometimes
and underlying position can convince a judge to vote for you.
Other Stuff
Usually, cases start and end with an introduction and conclusion. The introduction
can be a senario, analogy, or simply a quote. Make sure that these have to do
with the resolution. Don't pick some random quote because it sounds good. Also
it would be nice if you had a short little explanation of how your introduction
is relevant to the resolution because the relation may not be so clear to the
judge. Ideally, you want your introduction to lead into your case. The
conclusion can be whatever you want. It would sound nice if you tied in your
introduction into your conclusion, but its not necessary. Whenever I can't think
of anything for the conclusion, I just end by saying "and that is why blah blah
blah is justified." or something like that. If you are on negative, you don't
need to have a conclusion until after you are done refuting. So when done with
reading your case, just say, "now moving on to the affirmative case" or something.
View sample cases
back to LD stuff
back to speech page
Email: kerwinguy@yahoo.com
