Example 1 - Comparing structures of the Traditional Needs Case and a Case Line Case
Traditional Euthanasia case structure:
- Define resolution: BIRT Canada legalize Euthanasia.
- Needs for change:
- People are suffering (moral argument)
- You have the right to control your own life (legal argument)
- It will save money (unwise economic argument, really a benefit)
- Intro Detailed Plan to meet these three needs.
Case Line Euthanasia structure:
- Define resolution: BIRT Canada legalize Euthanasia.
- 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
- Arguments:
- Canadians have an inherent right to life, liberty and security, which extends to the right to die (legal Charter argument)
- Canadians believe in freedom of belief and practice of belief (moral argument)
- The potential harm from Euthanasia does not outweigh the benefits (moral preemptive argument)
- Intro Brief Plan that agrees with thesis
