A strong case requires both practical and principled justification. This guide outlines how to structure both types effectively.

To prove your case, show that the policy you advocate produces tangible benefits or change.

• Change may be behavioral, cultural, or perceptual.
• On Opp, use practicals to show Gov creates more harm than good.

1. Claim: Clear tagline summarizing your point.
2. Problem: Context for why the argument matters.
3. Mechanism/Analysis: How your side achieves change.
   • Provide multiple mechanisms.
   • Avoid mere assertions — explain the “why.”
   • Evidence (stats, examples) is optional but helpful.
4. Impact: Why the change matters — include short- and long-term effects across stakeholders.
5. Conclusion: Tie back to the motion and burdens of proof.

1. Claim: Banning smoking protects public health.
2. Problem: Millions still smoke, leading to preventable disease and death.
3. Mechanism:
   • Legal deterrence → disincentivizes individuals & manufacturers.
   • Reduced demand → fewer cigarettes produced & harder access.
   • Cultural shift → signals that smoking is unacceptable.
4. Impact:
   • Fewer addictions and illnesses
   • Increased life expectancy and productivity
   • Reduced public healthcare burden

Beyond practicality, policies must be morally justified. Principle arguments ground your case in values and consistency.

1. State the principle claim.
2. Prove the principle exists in general (using examples and varied perspectives).
3. Show the motion is a case of this principle.
4. Explain why the principle matters (justice, fairness, consistency).
5. (Optional) Address problem cases — show why exceptions don’t apply here.

1. Principle Claim: People have the right to bodily autonomy, including organ sales.
2. Principle in General:
   • We allow self-risking choices: skydiving, smoking, cosmetic surgery.
   • We don’t force people to work longer hours for collective gain — autonomy takes priority.
3. Motion as Case: Organ sales are a bodily choice with personal risk but individual control.
4. Importance: Even if harmful outcomes occur, autonomy is foundational and signals respect for human agency.
5. Problem Cases:
   • We restrict behaviors that harm others (hard drugs, reckless driving).
   • But organ sales primarily affect the seller, not others — akin to climbing Everest despite risks.

• Show why the motion doesn’t qualify under the claimed principle.
• Co-opt the principle: agree, but show your side protects it better.
• Argue other principles or considerations outweigh it.