Prioritizing arguments during prep time

This article is based upon this debate seminar given by Ashish Kumar. If you’d prefer to watch than read, check it out here.

Just a reminder: this is not a Buildacase course lesson. These articles primarily cover debate theory which are not necessary or super helpful to novices, who need more practical instructions. If you are new and want to improve at debating, I suggest starting with Lesson One.

Context: Easing panic during prep

While debating, you may have encountered a common roadblock during prep: you feel like you can’t think of arguments and you begin to panic. Or you think of one argument but your pro told you that you should have three arguments in every speech. Similarly, sometimes during prep you think of too many arguments and you don’t know which ones to spend time fleshing out.

Every debater, even the best ones, panic during prep sometimes. The key difference is that the best debaters know how to manage their panic and stay productive during prep. This article introduces a paradigm to understand building a case. Hopefully, when you learn and apply the paradigm to your prep time, you will feel slightly less panicked.

Theory: Two types of cases

Honestly, this paradigm is pretty simple: find out which arguments are worth spending time on during prep time by asking, generally, which type of case is this? By identifying the type of case at the beginning of prep, it helps you prioritize what you need to defend and why you need to defend a particular claim.

There are two extremes of types of cases in BP debate.

Type 1 cases are for debates/motions where there is only one clear argument that can win the round. For example:
Type 2 cases are for debates/motions where there are too many arguments that can win the round. For example: TH, as the US government, would nationalize Amazon.

You’re probably thinking: But Matt, most motions have 2-3 arguments so they aren’t really either types of case.

Yes, you would be correct. Most cases are inbetween Type 1 and Type 2 cases. However, not all arguments are equally strong in a debate round. Oftentimes there are 4-5 reasonable arguments in a motion, but only 1-2 are truly round-winning, because they are difficult to refute and have a clearly important impact that will compel judges.

For example:
For example (2):

Practical applications:

Type 1 case strategy

Don’t worry, we illustrate with examples at the end.

In a type 1 case, you must defend every single link in an argument.

First argument: sets up criteria you need to win the debate OR explaining what the problem is and what needs to be done to win
- How clashes ought to be adjudicate
Following arguments: why this motion DOES uniquely or doesn’t fulfill the criteria

There are 2 ways to break down and analyze simple cases:

Trust yourself — your common sense is usually right, stop thinking like a debater.

If you just ask ‘what would an average person I ask on the street about this, what would they say?’ you can actually generate the obvious important issues and arguments.

Best arguments are arguments that work regardless of context

For example: THBT, in post conflict states, past leaders of social movements should not run for office.
- Have to consider: if they run and win, if they run and lose, and all the different nuances of different groups’ context. ISIS is not all rebel groups TOO MUCH COMPLICATION, many arguments hinge on specific context.
This motion has incredible diverse contexts that are hard to all argue, but ultimately it can be won with one argument. Can you think of what it is? In this case, try not to tether arguments to specific contexts because another team will just assert a new context and muddle the debate.
For extensions: if your opening half focuses on specific contextual arguments, then you can just win the debate by giving argument that works regardless of context

Type 2 case strategy

In a type 2 case, you choose from multiple arguments.

Discuss in prep beforehand which arguments are most important, which arguments you are okay to lose (not all arguments are equally as good, don’t spread yourself too thin)
Accept you cannot come up with one argument that addresses all the metrics in the debate.

There are 3 ways to break down and analyze complex cases:

Main idea here: Acknowledge the complexity, and give judges a fair way to deal with complexity.

Argue worst case for your side and win it on those grounds, so you probably win elsewhere

If you win in the worst, most extreme tradeoff for your side, then everything that is a more reasonable tradeoff seems like a very clear win for your side.

Sometimes you are forced to do this if the burden of the debate is absolute: For example: THBT indigenous ppl should have an absolute “indiginous practices defense” for cultural practices
More importantly, sometimes the motion doesn’t require an absolute or extreme burden, but you can still make an argument for it.
- For example: THW ban race-based parties from running for political office
- For this motion, you can argue a simple “there are many good parties” but the stronger argument is that “even the worst racist parties are still worth having.”

Divide and conquer: have arguments for each set of circumstances

Sometimes there are too many different arguments and it is unclear what is the most important, so you have to be efficient and fully run 2-3 arguments. This is particularly useful for fronthalf teams, since otherwise backhalf can just pick one remaining argument and weigh it directly against your arguments.

For example: THW criminalize payment of ransom
There are too many scenarios for this: your child being kidnapped, your asset (ship, car, etc.) being stolen, someone important like a war journalist or politician being kidnapped. Depending on the scenario, paying ransoms could encourage more kidnappings or theft or undermine the authority and rule of law in a state. Or maybe the theft/kidnapping is justified, and maybe the victim knew they were likely to be kidnapped and its part of their professional obligation. What if you pay to get your child back and you get scammed? Maybe its a waste of money, or maybe it’s a desirable outcome because a parent has a responsibility to try to save their child, irrespective of the outcome.
Since you don’t know what other debaters will say, you should try to ‘put your hand in every cookie jar.’

Prove only one context is important

This strategy is useful when you are running backlash arguments. Or when you cannot think of enough scenarios for the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, or when you are an extension speaker.

Establish a metric, point out why other contexts are not fulfilling this metric, and prove why your context is the only relevant tipping point into an impact which fulfills the metric.
For example:

Key takeaways:

This paradigm of case types is useful when you only have one argument and you are worried that it is not enough.

Enumerating doesn’t make a case stronger. One point can win a debate in many rounds.
Arguments that seem intuitive/trivial/mediocre often are very strong points in Type 1 cases.

This paradigm is also useful when you can think of 2-5 arguments but don’t know what to spend the most time on during prep to flesh out and during your speech to explain.

Argue for the worst case, divide and conquer, or weigh one context.