Philo@PA: The Philomathean Society
A friendly guide to parliamentary extemporaneous debate at Phillips Academy.
Home | Curriculum | Drills | Videos | Debate Format | Additional Resources
Case Construction
Each round, you and your partner will have ten minutes alone together to build your points and your overall case. (Unless it’s an Oregon prepared debate, which are few and far between, and require a different approach to case construction)
The general rule of thumb is to use three points, as that provides a solid baseline that you can actually elaborate upon within your speech without leaving extra time remaining or rushing through your points, but don’t be afraid to run two or four as long as you manage to fill time and still have a solid case that you think will win. In fact, when desperate for points (especially on government), you can even run a case with only one significant argument by splitting it into sub-categories– the first establishing a definite need for change from the status quo, the second showing how the resolution solves the issue and does so uniquely, and the third explaining additional benefits.
To fill out each point, use this acronym: ARESI/ARESR
Argument: Clearly state what the contention is. Often, you should come up with a catchy tagline to refer to when first introducing your point, so the judge can remember it and so you can refer back to it easily in the future.
Reasoning: Why is this contention true? How do you logically explain your claim?
Evidence: Reference evidence that supports the contention and its reasoning. Often in novice rounds people will come up with false studies and use those to provide backing to their points, but to do this properly you shouldn’t even need to lie. Rely on common knowledge and logical rationales that make sense to both the judge and the opponents. You can even combine this with reasoning most of the time, as both can simply be boiled down to a logical explanation of your argument.
Significance: What is the significance of the contention? How does this matter in the confines of the debate? How can you tie this back to the central point– the resolution? How does this claim strengthen your whole case?
Impact/Result: What does this claim mean in the real world? How does it being true affect the pros and cons of the resolution? How would this affect people? The economy? The environment? etc. What definite change comes about because of your claim’s validity?
Specific Topics in Depth