Example 1 - Comparing structures of the Traditional Needs Case and a Case Line Case

Traditional Euthanasia case structure:

  1. Define resolution: BIRT Canada legalize Euthanasia.
  2. Needs for change:
    1. People are suffering (moral argument)
    2. You have the right to control your own life (legal argument)
    3. It will save money (unwise economic argument, really a benefit)
  3. Intro Detailed Plan to meet these three needs.

Case Line Euthanasia structure:

  1. Define resolution: BIRT Canada legalize Euthanasia.
  2. State thesis: We have the right to determine our own destiny based on our own values, as long as it does not cause greater harm to others
  3. Arguments:
    1. Canadians have an inherent right to life, liberty and security, which extends to the right to die (legal Charter argument)
    2. Canadians believe in freedom of belief and practice of belief (moral argument)
    3. The potential harm from Euthanasia does not outweigh the benefits (moral preemptive argument)
  4. Intro Brief Plan that agrees with thesis

Our Sponsors

Saskatchewan Lotteries Sask Culture Canadian Student Debating Federation Law Foundation of Saskatchewan