Part 1: The Setup

Thesis
Introductory Material
Definitions
Observations

The set up should include the resolution. In all cases you should make a statement of your team’s side (PRO or CON) on the resolution. This is your thesis. Phrases like “We affirm resolved:” or “My partner and I negate the resolution that” work best. They introduce the resolution smoothly as well as remind the judge which side of the debate you are on. The one exception to reading the exact wording of the resolution would be for the second speaking team. There is no need to repeat it after your opponents have read it. I cannot stress enough, repetition of your side should happen throughout the case and later speeches. Refer to you and your partner as the side you are on (We the PRO/CON) to help the judge associate you with your side.

The phrase “We stand in the strongest affirmation/negation of the resolved” is a common introductory phrase. I, along with many of my fellow coaches, am puzzled at what “standing in the strongest affirmation/negation” looks like. I even wonder what “standing in affirmation” means. Avoid awkward phrasing that will confuse your judge from the start.

Acceptable introductory material is something that varies district by district. I’m a minimalist. I prefer introducing the resolution and listing off the main ideas of my arguments. Some debaters are of the opinion that listing allows your opponents more time to prepare rebuttals to your arguments. I believe that listing aids the judge by previewing the case structure. Providing a preview is like looking at a map of where you are going; it will help the judge organize their thoughts as the case progresses. If 20 extra seconds of prepping rebuttals helps your opponents, your arguments need to be improved.

An opening quote, anecdote, or analogy is also common in the introduction. These introductions may be persuasive, but they also take away crucial speech time. It is unlikely the judge will decide the round based on the introduction, unless you integrate the material into your later speeches. Most debaters do not integrate the anecdote or quote; it only served as pretty introductory material. Unlike an essay, you don’t necessarily need a “hook” for your case. You would be better served citing more evidence rather than quoting a politician or philosopher in your introduction. If you find a compelling anecdote that highlights a key argument or humanizes your case, limit it to a few sentences. If you would not repeat the material in Final Focus, it is not going to serve you in the round.

 “Formal” introductions should be avoided at the beginning of your case. These include introducing your partner and yourself by name, greeting the judge and your opponents, showering everyone with your gratitude for showing up on a weekend to support the noble activity of high school debate. I do not care for these introductions and it seems to be the general consensus among coaches I have met. As a debater they were annoying; as a judge, they never affected my perception of  a team. If you are in a district where the culture is to include formal introductions, by all means continue. If you are not, you don’t need to include them. You always thank the judge after the round. While debaters should always be polite, it is unnecessary often over the top to start out the debate with formal introductions.

Next, the set-up contains important definitions. Introduce definitions with a phrase or sentence such as,” We’d like to define the following terms…” Never define all the words of the resolution. The clock is ticking and you don’t want to waste any precious time on a word that everyone understands. There are three types of definitions to consider including in the set-up. For examples I will refer to the 2013 September/October Topic Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Key words: words from the resolution that should be defined to clarify their meaning or to provide a certain view of the topic. Key words are worth defining because they shape the judge’s understanding of the topic and may be helpful in building your arguments.

Example key words: justified, nuclear proliferation, possibly unilateral depending on your case

Terms of Art: words that only scholars in the field of study would know. A recent example is “failed nation”. In scholarly publications, the term is actually “failed state.” But either term is something that the average person would not know the meaning of. In this case, you need to define the term for the general clarity and comprehension of arguments.

Example terms of art: nuclear proliferation

Key terms not in resolution: Sometimes there will be terms that you use in arguments that do not occur in the resolution, but nonetheless warrant defining. To determine if you should define a word, look for frequently used terms in your case that would confuse a non-debater. Also include acronyms you will substitute in your case for lesser known organizations or ideas.

Examples of other key words: NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), dual use technology

Key words that don’t need to go in case: Sometimes there will be words in the resolution that may or may not shape the round. It’s always a good idea to have these words defined, but on a separate document than your case. That way if there is conflict on a definition, you can read the actual definition rather than relying on speculation.

Examples of non-necessary key words: unilateral, prevent


With all definitions provide a source citation. This generally is the publication alone. While Merriam Webster is a great go to, using topic specific dictionaries like Black’s Law Dictionary will trump general definitions. With a citation you should have a prepared justification for why your definition should prevail in the case that your opponents provide a different definition. This justification is for support, not to be read in your case.

Please note that definitions DO NOT WIN DEBATE ROUNDS. While you may have to argue about them, winning a definition is not like winning an argument. Winning a definition establishes a specific reading of the resolution. Often, a definition debate establishes a non-essential term to the resolution – helping no one. These debates just create a mess and distract from arguments. Don’t do not let your round devolve into a definition debate.

Finally, Observations are the PF structure for introducing Framework and Burdens. An Observation will explain some important perspective on the resolution that you want your judge and your opponents to be aware of as they listen to your arguments and evaluate the round. A format for Observations would go as follows: “We would like to make a few (or a specific number) observations. Observation 1…Observation 2…” For an in-depth look at observations and how to write them, please see the Framework chapter. That chapter also discusses Burdens.

A concise set-up is best. However, there is no perfect length. You want to leave as much time as possible to establish your arguments, provide evidence, and explain your impacts. You also want to establish your Framework and provide sufficient analysis for it to function in round.