Building a Case

Now that you have learned how to cut a card, it is time to put this skill to the test by building a case (which consists of multiple cards)! Each time a new topic is released, be prepared to build both an Aff and a Neg case – you will have to defend both sides each tournament, usually alternating each round. That is to say that even if you feel strongly for or against a particular side, you must advocate for both. This truly shows the beauty of debate, focusing on honing researching abilities, improving speaking skills, and trying new things rather than being a space to solely express personal political beliefs (although these may be incorporated to a certain extent)!

An LD case is somewhat of a reflection back on what has already happened in the world, drawing connections as to what may happen in the future as a result. The debater acts sort of like an observer or commentator. The goal of LD is to determine which side accurately represents what we believe or value. Thus, people sometimes refer to it as a “value debate”. LD debaters are in the round to debate whether the resolution is good or not as a whole. The judge votes for the debater who has best proved the validity of their side of the resolution. This is in contrast to another style called Policy debate, in which debaters mimic real-life policy-makers and try to pass the resolution as a piece of legislation or policy. In Policy debate, the judge votes for whoever has proven the best policy action to be enacted. Although, there are some aspects of Policy that LD adopts, such as passing a plan or counterplan (policies), but stay tuned for a future lesson on that.

In LD, if we were to Affirm “Resolved: the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust”, we would be saying that the resolution is correct and accurately describes what we value, due to reasons of e.g. space debris and other contention(s) explaining the unjust actions that private entities have done in outer space, as well as what will happen in the future as a result of these actions.

This section will cover how to make a case for both Aff and Neg sides. I would highly suggest that you read through this section and compare the components to the example cases attached (minimize tabs into split screen or have 2 devices [the ideal sweaty online debate setup] in front of you). Otherwise, go through it once and check out the cases attached. Either way, the use of examples can help strengthen one’s understanding.

1AC – Aff Constructive Case

Here’s the Microsoft Word version of an example Aff case I will be referring to:

I would recommend using Word, but if it doesn’t work, here’s the PDF:

Statement of the Resolution

Starting with “I affirm…” followed by the resolution word for word (“Resolved: …”) can help to clarify the topic for your judge and opponent. This is useful especially at the beginning of the month when a new topic is first used at tournaments, so your judge knows what everyone is talking about.

Definitions

Next, you as the Aff want to briefly define important words in the resolution. Using the JanFeb 2022 example, “Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust”, we need to know what this cluster of jargon means. Using sources such as Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, or other dictionaries and academic literature, search up the meaning of the nouns and verbs of the resolution. Then, cut some cards from these sources (check the attached doc “Space Aff Example Case”).

Otherwise, sometimes when you don’t define words, your opponent can easily work around your nonexistent boundaries, twist the entirety of your case, or run something called “theory”, which will make you lose because you didn’t define words in the resolution – something you were expected to do as a valuable norm in debate. In general, just include definitions, even if briefly, and be prepared to defend them with credible evidence.

Framework

What follows directly after definitions is the mention of your framework, where you basically explain to the judge from what perspective they should view the round, a.k.a. what matters under the topic. The framework consists of two parts: a value and a value criterion.

Firstly, your value is an ultimate goal that is good, which you want to achieve. The two most commonly used are morality and justice, though it doesn’t really matter what value you end up choosing. You just have to choose a subjective quality that can be at-large agreed upon. When presenting it in-round, just say something like “My value is justice”. You don’t have to define it, because the main focus of the framework is to be able to justify and defend your value criterion.

Next, your value criterion (or just “criterion” for short) is most vital to outlining and describing your position. It is usually a short phrase such as “My value criterion is to maximize human well-being” or “My value criterion is to act in accordance with international law” (followed by evidence of why we should prefer it). Basically, the criterion is the method you believe is best able to achieve the value (justice or morality) that you previously mentioned.

In the situation that you and your opponent agree on value criterion, there is no need for a clash of frameworks (or “framework debate“). For our purposes, we will be focusing on debates centered around utilitarianism (nicknamed “util”), or the philosophy that the greatest pleasure for the greatest amount of people is the most moral / just (the previous example of “maximizing human well-being”). This criterion says that in order to achieve justice, we must act in a way that provides the greatest possible pleasure/well-being to everyone involved. Utilitarianism is the most basic and intuitive criterion out there, yet a majority of rounds often use utilitarianism as the framework and therefore center around which side provides the greatest pleasure for society. Criterions, such as util, are often also called “frameworks” for simplicity (e.g. “util framework”) since the criterion is basically the only thing that matters for the entirety of the framework.

Aside from util debates, the framework that the Aff introduces may be contested by the Neg, thus the debate being centered around the clash of ideals between two very different criterions. We will go through different frameworks and their interactions through framework debate in a future unit! For now, util debates are our focus.

For a util debate to occur, the Aff would introduce their criterion of “maximizing human well-being” or something similar, and have evidence (ideally in the form of a card) to back up the reason why this round should be evaluated as such. The reasoning could be anywhere from how it is a natural survival instinct for humans to seek pleasure and avoid pain, moral uncertainty (preventing human extinction is key to surviving and having more time to figure out the true meaning of morality), and how policymakers have to justify their actions to the public thus the need to act in the overall best interest of the population. Next, the Neg would agree with the util framework of the Aff (by just saying a single sentence “I concede to the Aff framework, moving on…”), but we’ll get to that later when discussing the 1NC in-depth.

In the attached “Space Aff Example Case”, the Moen 16 evidence explains how justice is achieved by maximizing well-being. It states that we know inherently how pleasure is good and pain is bad. Util believes that striving for pleasure and avoiding pain are the end goals for humans, as shown in our daily activities and long-term aspirations. Thus, the round should also be determined according to util.

Contentions

After the Aff reads definitions and framework, they get to the main part of util debates: contentions! A case typically involves 2-3 contentions, although sometimes just 1 is sufficient if truly well-explained. Any more than 3 contentions risk being under-explained and will be easier for your opponent to take down, so it is not recommended.

A contention is one point or justification to Affirm/Negate, which operates under your framework. Because your framework alone cannot prove why you should win, you must describe examples and instances which support the validity of the resolution, using studies, predictions, and trends. For example, “Contention 1: Space Debris Collisions” explains how private companies are polluting outer space with debris, which is bad because it causes collisions and hence countries may go to nuclear war over confusion as to why their nuclear early-warning satellites are being destroyed. Nuclear war will take many lives, thus it connects to your value criterion (util), and hence your value (justice). Only after all of this explanation does your framework make sense in the context of Affirming the resolution.

The basic structure of a single contention can be thought of as divided into three main parts:

• Claim (a title or sentence to introduce the contention)
• Warrant (a long chain of logic, connecting the resolution to the impact)
• Impact (the benefit / harm / end goal – why does this contention matter?)

The claim can be thought of as an initial statement to introduce the contention, although this usually comes in the form of a title. For example, “Contention 1: Space Debris Collisions” as a header is sufficient.

Jumping all the way down to the impact, it is basically a single card that explains a catastrophic or horrible outcome that proves the resolution in favor of the Aff. At the very end of each contention in the example Aff case, this is exactly what Witze 20 (nuclear war) and Krosofsky 21 (climate change) seek to do. They outline horrible humanity-ending / extinction scenarios that will happen if you don’t vote Affirmative, explaining why the Aff position is important to prevent this disaster, as well as its relevancy to the util framework. Bear with these overdramatized impacts: debaters need to make their impacts matter. Preventing extinction is the most important thing under a utilitarian framework, therefore this choice is strategic and recommended if you want to outdo your opponent and win. Notice how this outdoing of large-scale disasters only occurs under utilitarianism, because the framework states that it matters to maximize pleasure and minimize pain – the logic is that there is nothing worse than the pain of mass extinction and death. Nuclear war and climate change are the most popular extinction impacts, but others include artificial intelligence apocalypse (extinction at the hands of AI), a large-scale deadly pandemic as a result of bioterrorism, terrorism (which eventually leads to nuclear war), etc.

The most important takeaway and clarification is to keep in mind that when debaters say “the impact is nuke war” or “climate change”, their whole point is to try to prevent something bad from happening. Rather than introducing a proactive / positive impact (like generating happiness or handing out free fried chicken buckets to everyone), it’s usually about preventing something SUPER TERRIBLE from happening (that being humanity-ending disaster). In more utilitarian words, debate cases explain how to prevent pain rather than create pleasure.

Now that we understand the utilitarian impact as an extinction event, how do we get from allowing private companies into outer space to the end of humans? This is where the warrant of the contention comes in to fill the gaps.

Right after the title/claim, you would jump straight to reading cards (tagline -> author -> highlighted text). The warrant of a contention is the longest part, consisting of multiple cards which thoroughly explain how you get from Affirming the resolution to a specific benefit (the impact, e.g. preventing nuclear war). Think of the resolution as “Point A” and the impact as “Point B”: the warrant acts as a path that connects Point A to Point B. The warrant consists of multiple internal links, which are individual cards that build atop the one before it, until the contention’s story is fully coherent and complete with the impact. These multiple internal links come to form a link chain (literally a chain of internal links), a.k.a. link story, or just story.

Referring to the cards of the first contention, let’s take “Space Debris Collisions” as an example of the link chain / warrant leading up to the impact:

• Daehnick and Harrington 21 establishes that private companies are going to outer space and launching thousands of satellites right now. These satellites will remain up there for many years as “space debris”, and the card goes on to explain how unmanageable this problem is becoming.
• Ramanathan 21 expands on space debris, stating how private company satellites are involved in multiple near misses frequently, implying that collisions will increase as a result of private companies in outer space.
• Johnson 13 describes how more space debris buildup is created as a result of collisions, creating a cascading effect (known as the “Kessler Effect” or “Kessler Syndrome”), which fills Earth’s orbit full of debris.
• Graham 05 shifts over to describe how unreliable Russia’s space-based nuclear early warning satellite system is, and reinforces this with a recent example of miscalculation by Russian officials.
• Barrett 16 is the final piece in the puzzle (that is the warrant), explaining that space debris may destroy a Russian early warning satellite. Russia may mistake this as American aggression and decide to strike first. The outcome is Russia launching nukes as an ensuing nuclear war follows.
• Finally, Witze 20 is the nuclear war impact card, giving a concrete description of how devastating a nuke war between countries would be.

The second contention, “Rocket Launch Pollution”, is shorter than the first. Therefore, it can be more simply explained:

• Ben-Itzhak 22 establishes private space companies’ commercial endeavors.
• Piesing 22 explains how practices of private space companies, such as space tourism, mean launching rockets. These rockets produce large amounts of greenhouse gases and pollute Earth’s environment.
• Krosofsky 21 is the climate change impact, describing the consequences of global warming several years later (extinction, extreme weather, fewer resources, etc).

The strength and credibility of the warrant are at many times a deciding factor in the round, rather than whose extinction impact is the biggest: we don’t have to worry about nuclear war if the evidence presented isn’t that solid to support it. This is why spending time cutting good cards and truly understanding the link chain story is necessary!

1NC – Neg Constructive Case

What the Negative case introduces is much the same as the Affirmative case, although having the advantage of being reactionary to the Aff and knowing the opponent’s case already, thus being able to adapt strategy accordingly. The Negative constructive case is followed by a rebuttal section (1NC + 1NR), as previously explained in the Speech Order unit, therefore the time that Neg uses to introduce definitions, framework, and contentions will be less than the Aff (likely 4 to 4.5 minutes). This part will mainly cover how to fill those few minutes of the first half of this Neg constructive speech.

Statement of the Resolution

Again, same with the Aff, this step is optional. Since the Aff likely already introduced the resolution and spent 6 minutes on a case already, everyone should have a good idea of what the round is about.

Definitions

“I negate the resolution. I will agree with their definitions and framework. Moving on to Contention 1…” is usually sufficient, that is, if there isn’t anything to contest. You would hope that the Aff definitions are reasonable and not (in the odd case) ridiculous, but that is up the Neg to determine and have a debate about definitions. For example, take a topic about nuclear proliferation: if they define “nuclear” as the center of a cell, and “arms” as in human limbs, “nuclear arms” would mean something completely different from what the topic is trying to get at. Therefore, this would require you to justify why your definition(s) should be preferred over the Aff’s.

Framework

Next, the Neg would decide whether to contest (disagree with) or concede (agree with) the Aff framework. In the case of contesting framework, Neg would have to put some work into introducing and justifying a new framework completely different from the Aff’s (again, covered later on – for now, util debates are our focus). On the other hand, conceding to the util framework of the Aff just requires you to indicate so with one sentence. Afterwards, you may jump straight to reading contentions.

Contentions

Contentions recommendations are the exact same as the Aff ones, except Neg spends slightly less time on them to make way for the rebuttal part of the speech.

Contention 1 talks about asteroid mining:

• Garretson 21 establishes how private companies innovate for space faster, better, and cheaper than governments.
• Krishnan 20 says that space mining by private companies is underway and will be full-scale soon.
• Britt 21 further explains how mining asteroids is sustainable and safe, while reinforcing the idea that private entities will be the ones to do this and listing examples of specific companies making progress.
• MacWhorter 16 points out the large amount of pollution occurring as a result of mining operations on Earth. The logic is that private companies will extract resources from outer space, resulting in less pollution happening near or on Earth, contributing to less global warming. Simultaneously, these resources may become more accessible over time, compared to a finite Earth supply.
• Krosofsky 21 is the same impact card from the 2nd Aff contention about climate change.

Contention 2 is somewhat of a unique contention, as its impact refers to multiple Earth-extinction events collectively being able to wipe out humanity rather than just one, but nonetheless follows the same format:

• Brown 22 states that private entities, such as Musk’s SpaceX, have the motivation and infrastructure to set up colonies in outer space, namely Mars.
• Dorrier 14 explains that humanity placing all its bets on Earth’s survival is a bad choice, in case an unexpected extinction event suddenly wipes us out.
• Rincon 18 further describes Stephen Hawking’s view that the probability of catastrophe adds up and becomes certain over an extended period of time, hence needing to quickly spread out to more planets as a species in order to counter that threat.

Previous: Formatting Evidence

Next: Rebuttals