This piece is based on a seminar by Ashish Kumar — if you'd prefer to watch, search for it on YouTube.
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 someone 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, panics during prep sometimes. The key difference is that the best debaters know how to manage their panic and stay productive. This piece introduces a paradigm to understand building a case. Hopefully, when you learn and apply the paradigm, you will feel slightly less panicked.
Theory: two types of cases
This paradigm is pretty simple: find out which arguments are worth spending time on during prep 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 case types in BP debate.
Type 1 cases are for debates/motions where there is only one clear argument which can win the round.
Type 2 cases are for debates/motions where there are too many arguments which 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 type.
Yes, you would be correct. Most cases sit between Type 1 and Type 2. 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 which will compel judges.
Type 1 case strategy
In a Type 1 case, you must defend every single link in an argument.
- First argument: sets up the criteria you need to win the debate, or explains what the problem is and what needs to be done to win.
- Following arguments: why this motion uniquely does or doesn't fulfill the criteria.
There are two ways to break down and analyze simple cases:
Trust yourself — your common sense is usually right, stop thinking like a debater.
If you ask "what would an average person say about this?" you can generate the obvious important issues and arguments. The best arguments are arguments which work regardless of context. If a motion has incredibly diverse contexts which are hard to argue for all of them, try not to tether arguments to specific contexts — because another team will just assert a new context and muddle the debate.
Type 2 case strategy
In a Type 2 case, you choose from multiple arguments.
- Discuss in prep which arguments are most important and which you are okay to lose. Not all arguments are equally good — don't spread yourself too thin.
- Accept you cannot come up with one argument which addresses all the metrics in the debate.
There are three ways to break down and analyze complex cases:
Argue worst case for your side and win it on those grounds.
If you win in the worst, most extreme tradeoff for your side, then everything which is a more reasonable tradeoff seems like a very clear win. Sometimes a motion doesn't require an absolute burden, but you can still make an argument for it.
Divide and conquer: have arguments for each set of circumstances.
Sometimes there are too many different arguments and it is unclear which is most important, so you have to be efficient and fully run 2-3 arguments. This is particularly useful for fronthalf teams — otherwise backhalf can just pick one remaining argument and weigh it directly against yours.
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 that metric, and prove why your context is the only relevant tipping point into an impact which fulfills the metric.
Key takeaways
- Enumerating doesn't make a case stronger. One point can win a debate in many rounds.
- Arguments which seem intuitive, trivial, or mediocre are often very strong in Type 1 cases.
- When you can think of 2-5 arguments but don't know what to spend time on: argue for the worst case, divide and conquer, or weigh one context.