![]()
CASE
- An way of remembering the components of a case line.
- C - the case
statement
- A - the arguments
- S - the strategy
- E - the process of exposing
(clash and case analysis)
![]()
Case
Line - a philosophy of thinking about debate and a method of
structuring the arguments made by a team. The case is considered in
a broad context, then a case line statement (like a thesis) is
generated. Finally three or four arguments to support the case line
statement are generated.
- 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)
![]()
Case Line
Statement - the main point a team is proving. Both the
negative and the affirmative have a case line statement, and that
statement must agree with the side of the resolution they are on.
Also known as a case thesis.
![]()
Clash
- attacking the argument raised by an opponent. Clash can be a
direct attack on one point through another point (see direct clash), an attack on several points by
addressing the underlying idea (see global
clash) or an attack of the underlying principle of an entire
side of a debate (see case line)
![]()
Comparative
Advantage Case - a type of case where the affirmative
attempts to prove that their plan is superior to the current system
but not perfect. The plan must meet the goals the current system is
based on.
![]()
Criteria
Case - a type of affirmative case where the affirmative
argues that any solution to the problem presented in the resolution
must meet a set criteria they have devised. The criteria become the
standard that the current system has failed to meet (replacing the
needs for change) and the plan must meet the criteria.
![]()
Direct
Clash - is a type of attack where one argument is
specifically refuted using another. For example, if the resolution
were BIRT abortion be declared illegal:
- Affirmative point: Abortion is the act of
killing a person and people have a right to life.
- Negative direct clash: A fetus is not a
person, but the woman is. She has a right to control her own
body.
![]()
Evidence - is a statistic,
quotation or case study (example) to support an argument you are
making. Be sure you understand not only what the evidence says, but
the reason for saying it and the context. Remember that all
arguments must be substantiated with either evidence or logic. See
SEDA's Guide to
Debate for additional information on rules of
evidence.
![]()
Global Clash - is a type of
refutation where several points in an opponent's case are attacked
through one point that strikes at assumptions. For example, if the
resolution was BIRT Capital Punishment be reinstated:
- Affirmative points: You can't re-offend if
you are dead so lives are saved. You will be less likely to commit
murder if you know you will die, so lives are saved.
- Negative global clash: Lives will still be
lost because capital punishment is a punishment not a prevention.
It is better to prevent the murders by altering the social
conditions that encourage murder.
![]()
Goals
Case - a type of case where the affirmative looks at the
stated goals of the current system (they must be formal written
goals found in policy or legislation) and proves the current system
does not meet those goals (replacing the need for change. The plan
introduced by the affirmative meets the goals).
![]()
Logic
- a method of proving an argument to be true. Logic uses clear,
defensible statements that work together to create a point. The
statements cannot rest on other points that are unproven (fallacy)
or on themselves (circular argument). Remember that all arguments
must be substantiated with either evidence or logic. See SEDA's
resources on logic on page 2o of the Step to Step Guide for much more detailed
information.
![]()
Needs
case - a type of case where the affirmative identifies 3
reasons change should occur (needs) and suggests a plan to meet the
needs.
Policy debate - a
debate about what should be done and why. A policy debate requires
an affirmative to introduce a plan that solves a problem. The plan
must be introduced in the first Affirmative and fully explained by
the end of the second affirmative. The negative clashes with the
reason for the change and the plan for the change.
SPLEEEM - an
acronym for remembering types of arguments you can use in a debate.
They include:
- S - social
- P - political
- L - legal
- E - economic
- E - environmental
- E - education
- M - moral
![]()
Thesis - the main point a team is proving.
Both the negative and the affirmative have a case line statement,
and that statement must agree with the side of the resolution they
are on. Also known as a case line statement.
Values debate - a
debate about the nature of a problem. The focus is on conflicting
philosophies about what is true or right. No plan is
introduced.
