What is a Case?
This is the word you will hear thrown around most often in debating. A case is the motion that the government team has put forward for debate. The case will define the topic of debate, it's place and time and the actors involved. The government has a responsibility to define all of these things (known as 'defining the debate') as clearly as possible. A case can be a moral judgement or a detailed plan, or somewhere in between.
An example of a moral judgment or 'principled' case is: Be it resolved that (BIRT) this House believes that pre-emtpive war is wrong.
An example of a plan or 'model' case is: BIRT the United States should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. You can see that the plan case calls for a specific course of action, whereas the principled case merely takes an ethical stance on one side or another of a particular issue. Both types of cases are equally valid.
Case Construction
Most CUSID tournaments require the government team to construct their own proposition cases, therefore, good case construction is critical to success in debating. The key to a good case is the topic. In order to receive full marks, proposition's case must have obvious 'clash'. This means that the case must involve some sort of major change in policy or procedure and that there are lots of reasons to be for or against it.
Some tips for good case construction:
- Think broadly about your topic. There are always direct and indirect effects as well as overarching philosophical ideas which come into play in any good case. The best case is made of points from a mix of different perspectives.
- Use S.P.E.R.M.(Social, Political, Economic, Religious, Moral) to help guide your points. These are five broad categories that almost always can contribute points, but don't over rely on S.P.E.R.M., be creative.
- Use PURSE. PURSE stands for Principles, Utility, Rights, Social, Economics. It's just another helpful mnemonic device to help you out.
- You need at least 4 points to support a case (3 for the PM and 1 for the MC), but most proposition cases have 5 or 6.
- Consider the weaknesses of the case, likely opposition points, and your rebuttal.
Some tips for good case delivery:
- The case needs to be clear from the beginning. Poorly presented cases lead to terrible rounds of debate.
- The PM speech should clearly 1) establish a need for change; 2) present a plan for change; and 3) demonstrate why the plan will be effective
- The PM and the MC speeches should both have introductions and conclusions
- Any important information such as a specific location or time the case takes place in must be made abundantly clear within the first minute. Also, any special terms must also be presented and defined.
- Use your time effectively.
When constructing a potential case you should try to aim for the following things:
- Make your cases interesting and contentious. Define your terms and try to avoid unnecessary ambiguity but not to avoid debating what would be an interesting issue.
- You MUST be able to say what your contention is in one sentence. An example of a clear and concise case statement is "We should ban diplomatic immunity." Furthermore, avoid long set-ups. If you cannot complete your link and give sufficient background information in one minute do not run the case.
- A good case should have several points on each side, and at minimum 4-5 points on your side. These points should be fairly distinctive and with substance. Likely one or two of your points will not be as strong as the rest. Do not put a fairly weak point as the one MC point (See Flowing for explanation of debate format and "MC")
Types of Cases
Several basic types of cases are often encountered in parliamentary debate. Of course, this list is not exhaustive; some cases lie outside the bounds of these three general areas. In particular, many cases will embody elements of several of these areas.
The Policy "Need Plan" Case
The policy case identifies a particular problem in the world, puts forward a policy plan designed to solve that problem, and urges that this plan be adopted by a particular body.
For example: Adoption agencies should prioritize potential parents based on having the same race as the infant or child.
It is important that the policy case show some sort of significant departure from the status quo or is a status quo that is contentious. A case, such as Toronto Community Housing should build 20 more units is not a significant or brave enough stance.
In general the major opposition to cases such as these is that the government fails to link the need and the plan. Often the need does exist but the plan does not properly address it.
The Philosophy / Values Case
A Government can offer a philosophical or normative debate about an ethical or philosophical issue and discuss the morality of a particular issue. Most cases should have an underlying philosophy anyway, whether policy or otherwise.
For example: This house supports eco-terrorism.
In general the major opposition to philosophy cases is that there are major practical problems. While it might not be the best strategy of opposition to focus on the practical issues, as it may avoid the clash, it is at minimum a good idea to raise it.
The Time and/or Place Set
The time-place set moves the Speaker and the house in the position of a person, group of people, to another venue time or place. In a time place set the speaker of the house assumes a role other than his or her true identity as Speaker. The Speaker is to judge the case from the perspective of the character or group he/she represents. The government may not define who the opposition team is, but they may cast themselves in a particular role. If the character would have an inherent bias to one perspective, the judge must still evaluate the case of the merit of the arguments presented in favour of the position.
For example: Mr. Speaker, you are a gay rights organization, we say you should "out" sprominent homosexuals who are in the closet.
In general the major opposition to time and/or place set cases is that the government falls back on to subjective arguments as opposed to objective arguments.
What Not To Run
Truism/Tight
A case is too narrow if there are no convincing arguments against it or if it simply supports an uncontroversial status quo. Such a case is called a truism/tight, and is prohibited. A case can be a truism even if there are some random possible arguments to be made against the proposition. It is considered a truism, for example, that women should be paid equally for work. Although there are possible arguments against it, they are not politically or socially valuable and the team would be pigeon holed into a sexist position. It's more than fair to ask an Opposition to oppose affirmative action programs, but not to condone racial discrimination against minorities. Because the Government has the burden of presenting a contentious case, they will be heavily penalized for running a truism, and the Opposition has the prerogative to redefine the case, or to rise on a "Point of Order" and, if successful, the Government must rework or replace their case in order to make it debatable.
Specific Knowledge
Detailed facts about a case that are not considered common knowledge are called specific knowledge cases. In proposing the case, specialized facts outside the range of a typical, well read University student are not permitted. If all the Opposition points are obscure facts, the case is unfair. It is assumed that debaters will have a working knowledge of major issues in international and national affairs, basic Western philosophy and fundamental documents like the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations. References to such sources or events are not considered specialized knowledge.
Open and Closed Motions
As a matter of formal parliamentary procedure, there must always be an 'official' motion before the house.
At a tournament, the tournament director (TD) will give the debaters the motion for each round of debate. These motions can be open or closed. This will be announced before the debate begins. Most tournaments will use only one or the other type of motion, although some tournaments will mix and match.
A closed motion (also known as a 'straight' or 'tight-link' motion) is one where the government team must use the motion given as the basis for its case. Sometimes the motion will be very narrow, and the government team will have nothing to do but come up with arguments.
For example: BIRT Canada should completely ban the sale and manufacture and consumption of cigarettes. There is no margin for maneuvre here at all. However, other times the motion will be less strictly defined, and the government team will have some latitude as to how it interprets it.
For example: BIRT The world should intervene in the Sudan. Here, the government team will have to explain what it means by 'world' and 'intervene'. Does 'world' mean the UN, or Nato, or the African Union, or the EU? Does 'intervene' mean invasion, diplomatic sanctions, economic sanctions, etc.
An open motion (also known as a 'squirrellable' motion) is one where the TD is merely respecting the formalities of parliamentary debate, but intends to leave it up entirely to the government team what the debate shall be about. They are usually silly, or will follow some theme for the tournament. For example: This House would dance with the devil by the pale moonlight. With an open motion, the government team is expected to provide its own case for debate. These cases will usually be prepared beforehand.
What is an Argument?
During their speeches, the members of each side will be responsible for giving arguments in favour or against the motion as defined by the governement. They will also have to respond to each others' arguments; this is known as rebuttal or refutation.
Argumentation is the real meat of debating. But 'argument' doesn't mean yelling at your girlfriend or your parents. An argument in debating is something very specific, to be defined in opposition to case, assumption, assertion and evidence.
To look at it one way, your case is a statement that you have to prove is true. If you can prove that it's true, you win the debate. If as opposition you can prove that it isn't true, then you win the debate. But you don't just stand up and ramble on for 7 minutes about how you think you're right and the other guys are wrong. There has to be some structure to how you explain your point of view. Arguments are the backbone of that structure. An argument is a statement put forward by you which, if it is true, supports the truth or validity of your side of the motion.
For example: intervening in the Sudan. Let's say I define the case as a Chapter VII intervention by the United Nations: in other words, an invasion. Once I have laid out my case, I have to convince you that I'm right. So I will tell you that a) Sudan cannot escape this conflict on its own and too many people are dying, and b) that the UN has a moral responsibility to intervene and c) that the UN has a legal responsibility to intervene. Each of those constitutes an argument.
But it's not enough just to say those things; I have to explain why they too are true. In a way, an argument is a mini-case. So to make it even clearer, debaters usually break down arguments into their three component parts: point, argument, evidence.
The point is merely the statement itself. It is over very quickly.
The argument is the reasoning that supports the statement. So let's take argument b) as an example. Here I would tell you that the UN is founded on the principles of human rights and human dignity, and that, as the most universal world organization and the corner-stone of world order, it represents all of humanity. I would then tell you that the Sudanese governement is massacring its own citizens along racial and ethnic lines for the benefit of a particular ethnic group, that humanity (and thus the UN) cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour as it is offensive to all, and that this is precisely the sort of thing the UN was founded to stop ( i.e. Nazi extermination of the Jews).
The evidence is the examples that back up your reasoning, to show that it has some basis in reality. So, as evidence, I would give you examples of other situations where the UN has got involved for precisely the same reasons, such as Kosovo, the Congo, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.
This is an over-simplified version of course. But this process must be repeated for every argument. Most people will tell you that a CP case should have at least 4 arguments, and no more than 5. This is just a guideline but until you have more experience, you should always aim to have 5 arguments for your cases.
Assertions and Assumptions vs. Arguments
One of the most common accusations that your opponents will throw at you is that you are merely asserting something rather than arguing it.
What does this mean? Imagine that, instead of going through the steps of point, argument, evidence, I merely stated my point and left it at that. That is called an assertion: when one simply asserts the truth of a statement, without bothering to provide evidence of its truth.
It is inevitable that at some point, some things will be assertions, because you are limited in the time you have to support your arguments and your means of providing evidence. I can tell you that the UN was founded to prevent crimes against humanity; but chances are I won't have a copy of the UN Charter around to show you that it's true.
In any case, it is common enough knowledge that doesn't require having to cite articles in the Charter to make the assertion true. So, sometimes asserting is ok; don't think you have to prove every single little thing you say in a debate.
But as a rule you should avoid making assertions as much as possible, especially when it comes to those things that are essential to your case. An assumption is just a hidden assertion. Sometimes it is hidden on purpose, and sometimes only because you weren't aware you were making the assumption when you made your argument.
If we return to the case about UN intervention in Sudan, there is a perfect example of this. All of the arguments I put forth and explain deal with why the UN needs to and should intervene in Sudan. But nowhere do I explain that it can. I am assuming, that is to say, I am secretly asserting, that the UN will be able to find the resources and personnel to undertake this mission successfully. Every single case, and every single argument, no matter how good a debater the person who built it is, will be full of assertions and assumptions.
So the best advice for a new debater is: look for the assumptions. That is your best and simplest strategy for undermining your opponents' logic.