Argumentative Strategies

Structuring your arguments is the first step of case writing. For a great case must also be strategic. Years of writing cases and reviewing others’ cases have taught me a few important lessons:

Before you write your case, do your research. Arguments written before doing research are easy to spot; the evidence used to support the argument will not directly support the claim.  The evidence may be relevant to the argument or prove one part. Relevant evidence relates to your argument – it does not prove your argument. If you are knowledgeable, you will write knowledgeable arguments. Get knowledge before you write arguments.

Use your third idea, not your first. When you are thinking of arguments, the first ones that come to mind will also be the first ones that come to mind for your opponents. I’m not saying that your first ideas will be inherently bad arguments. They will be expected arguments. You should aim to nuance common arguments so that your case is more difficult to refute to. Also, your second and third wave of arguments will come after you have done your research, therefore these later arguments will be more knowledgeable and supported by evidence.

Read and understand your evidence. If you don’t what your evidence is about, who authored it, or why it is credible, you’re arguments will be easy to refute. You set yourself up for failure if the first time you read a case is in a round. This happens if one partner writes a case and the other does not read it until the debate. You should be able to list off your arguments and impacts by memory. This is a good test if you “know” your case.

Don’t put all your argumentative eggs in the same basket. If all of your arguments rely on a single claim but illustrate different impacts, your case will fall if the claim is refuted. If all of your arguments are on the same subject, such as economic effects, your case is prone to being collapsed and therefore easier to refute. You want a mix of qualitative and quantitative arguments as well as a mix of impact types, such as social, economic, and political effects. You should strive to have distinct arguments and diversify your case.

Build preemptive statements into your arguments. If you can anticipate common rebuttals to your claim, warrant, or impact, point out the common response and explain to the judge why the response is flawed. Preemptive arguments can also compare your impact to an impact the other side is likely to bring up. This cuts down on what your opponents can say in rebuttal. It also makes your argument more thorough and begins impact analysis early. Judges will take notice of you consideration of responses. Judges will also benefit from the repetition of this comparison.

Placing a “time suck” argument in your case is only as effective as the debater who uses it. A “time suck” argument is one that is written for the purpose of the opponent being forced to spend time refuting something that, for the team running the time suck argument, will not be a voting issue. Time sucks only work if you remember to explain to the judge why: 1- the argument is not central to the round, 2- the time suck that cannot be turned into an offensive argument for your opponent, and 3- you stop talking about the time suck after rebuttal. If your time suck argument takes up your time, it accomplishes the opposite of what you want. A time suck should not be used if it takes up case time that you should use to substantiate other arguments.

I personally prefer to place the best argument last. This is not absolute advice. If you have an argument that it is a bit trickier to refute and your opponents most likely will answer the others first, placing an argument last will take advantage of debaters who don’t manage speech time well. Most debaters refute arguments in the order they are presented. This means without good time management skills, your opponents may not get around to refuting your last argument or not finishing his or her refutation. This is a tip and not something that works for everyone. If you struggle with time management in your case I would not place the best argument last.

Don’t save a key argument for the rebuttal speech. No good will come of it. The more important the argument, the sooner you should introduce it and the more you should talk about it; this means all important arguments should come in your case. Saving an argument “strategically” to avoid your opponent’s rebuttal is weak debating and not effective.

Flex-casing can be effective, depending on the resolution and your debate ability. Flex-casing is when you have prepared more arguments than what will fit in one case with the purpose of changing your case between rounds. Before each debate, you and your partner would pick which arguments to run that will fit in the four minute time constraints. For example, you would prepare arguments A, B, C, D, and E. One round you would run A, B, and C and another you would run A, D, and E. This can serve a few different purposes.

Flex-casing can allow a second speaking team to tailor their case to their opponent’s arguments and begin refutation during the constructive if there is open time.

Flex-casing can remove predictability at tournaments where you are likely to hit teams from the same school or teams that have hear your case.

Flex-casing can be useful if you are trying out arguments at one tournament and plan to debate a later tournament on the same topic. This is worthwhile if the first tournament is helping you prepare for a second, not if the first is an important tournament.

A variant of flex-casing is when the second speaking team chooses to leave a portion of their Case speech time open. The First Speaker would begin refuting the opponent’s case in the remaining time. For example, you would read three minutes or arguments and being the rebuttal in the last minute. This works if the second speaking team’s resolutional burden is more about refuting the other side rather than establishing independent reasons to vote for their side. This also only works when it is planned. Don’t just stop reading your case and begin a rebuttal. This pre-emptive rebuttal works well if you have planned beforehand what argument you are going to attack or what you will discuss with your partner.  If you decide to do an impromptu rebuttal you risk coming off as unpolished as well as appearing like you simply did not have a long enough case to fill up 4 minutes.