Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
Key tips for how you write your contentions in your case:
1. Make sure your tags are 4 to 9 words--any longer and they are too hard to flow; any shorter and they aren't descriptive enough
2. Make sure you have transitions between points--especially points that are not separated by evidence; if you don't do this the case will not sound smooth and your judges will have a hard time flowing your case.
3. For the title of your contention--give it a short title followed by a clear thesis statement describing the main point of your contention. For example, "Contention I, Juvenile Crime Crisis" followed by a thesis statement like "Juvenile crime is a growing problem that endangers virtually every American."
4. Make sure the points supporting your contentions give reasons to support your contention title--rather than just a series of claims. By this I mean avoid the following:
III. Boot camps will reduce crime
A. Boot camps lower crime
B. Boot camps reduce recidivism
C. Boot camps stop crime
Notice how points a, b and c just repeat the same claim--they provide no unique reasons to support the contention. Instead, look carefully at your evidence and change your tags so they give reasons to believe your contention title. For example:
III. Boot camps will reduce crime
A. Boot camps empirically lower crime
B. Boot camps teach good behavior that lowers recidivism
C. Boot camps use discipline to stop crime
With this structure, you can now do your 2ac, 1ar, and 2ar and say "We prove that boot camps lower crime by teaching good behavior and discipline, and this is empirically proven to lower crime."
Key tips for the issues your contentions can address in your case:
Standard contentions case structure:
I. There is a serious problem that is harmful (significance-harms)
II. The present system will not solve this problem (inherency)
Plan
III. The plan will solve this problem
Blame the government contentions case structure:
I. The present system does this (inherency)
II. The present policy causes harmful consequences (significance-harms)
Plan
III. The plan will solve the problem
The government makes it worse contentions case structure:
I. There is a serious problem that is harmful (significance-harms)
II. The present system fails to solve this problem (inherency)
III. The present system "solution" actually causes additional harmful consequences (significance-inherency)
Plan
III. The plan will solve the problem
Key checklist for arguments in your case:
Do you have significance, inherency and solvency?
Significance:
Do you show that people or living beings are hurt? For example, death, injury, unfair treatment, etc.
Do you show that many people are effected--throughout the country?
Inherency:
Do you show what the current policy is?
Does your plan change this current policy that you discuss? (if not, then how will you solve?)
Do you show why the present system causes the problem or cannot solve the problem?
Solvency
Do you show your plan will solve the problem?
Do you have proof your plan will solve--or do you just have someone saying "we should do your plan?"
Does your plan do what your solvency evidence says it should do?
Does your solvency evidence support
action that supports the resolution?
Thanks to Dan for this question.