U of T Debate Guide

Chapt 1 Styles of Debating

 Canadian Parliamentary

 The kind used in Canada, and the one upon which we will focus most of this guide. Two teams: government and opposition. Two members to each team: Prime Minister (PM) and Minister of the Crown (MC) for the government, Minister of Opposition (MO) and Leader of the Opposition (LO)for the opposition. The order is: PM 7 minutes, MO 7 minutes, MC 7 minutes, LO 10 minutes, and the Prime Minister's Rebuttal (PMR) 3 minutes. No new information may be introduced in the PMR or in the last three minutes of the LO speech. Resolutions are usually squirrelable, which means that the government is free to decide on the topic of debate.

British Parliamentary (a.k.a. Scottish Style, a.k.a. World's Style)

 There are four teams to each round: two propositions (prop), two oppositions (opp). Each team has two members. Each person speaks for the same amount of time, most commonly seven minutes. The order is first speaker first prop, first speaker first opp, second speaker first prop, second speaker first opp, first speaker second prop, first speaker second opp, second speaker second prop, and second speaker second opp. Resolutions are typically straight (a specific topic of debate is given) although some leeway for interpretation is given.  Points of Information or POIs (allowing you to ask questions of the other side) are often used. A round generally goes something like this: A resolution is given (e.g.: "This House Supports a Corporate Free Campus"). The first prop argues in favour of it taking a particular perspective on the issue (e.g.: that corporate funding of a university weakens it). The first opp argues against the first prop. When the first speaker of the second prop gets up, he has to put a spin on the resolution, arguing in favour of it and supporting the members of the first prop while nonetheless distinguishing his/her team from the first prop (e.g.: that it is the corporate influence in terms of steering students towards corporate career paths and subjects like business and engineering instead of English and art, this is the problem). This is often called planting the flag. The first speaker second opp is required to attack both the second prop's arguments and the first prop's position. Second opp also has the same responsibility as second prop to put their own spin on the topic. The second speaker second prop and second opp give summary speeches: they can introduce no new arguments and must summarize the debate in a way favourable to their side.

American Parliamentary

 Similar to the Canadian style. Speaking order: four eight minute speeches followed by two four minute rebuttals, Prime Minister speaking first and last in the found and the Leader of the Opposition speaking first and last for their side (called a split rebuttal). The American style tends to be more policy oriented. The Americans are also obsessed with "the flow" - all points, no matter how foolish, must be addressed and if your partner does not refer to one of their points you may not discuss it either, and it's considered to be dropped (and the points are taken off your side). Resolutions are squirrelable just as in Canadian Parliamentary.

Chapt 2 What the Government Does

Prime Minister (PM) - Seven Minutes

 The Prime Minister is responsible for outlining the topic for debate. This is done by stating the resolution and defining its meaning. The definition of the resolution chosen, or link, should provide a bridge between the actual resolution and your case statement. The resolution is often a song lyric or quotation (e.g.: "You can never stand in the same river twice"). Your case statement is the topic of debate you have chosen, the central contention of the government (e.g.: Nurses, teachers, and other "essential service" workers should be given the right to strike). The link can be anything that connects your resolution and the case statement (e.g.: "When it comes to contract negotiations there is a group that is denied any control of their finances, much like standing in a river: nurses, teachers, and other essential service providers. The government believes they should be allowed to strike"). All of this should be done in less than the first minute of the PM speech. For the most part the link is an unimportant anachronism, which nobody pays much attention to; you should not let the resolution limit your choice of case statement. This is not the case in debates with straight resolutions, such as "This House Believes in U.S.A. Gun Control", which you are expected to debate pretty much literally, although you may add certain nuances. If a round will have straight resolutions, you will be advised beforehand.

 The PM should then outline what the major arguments will be, and number each of them. It is better to take a few broad ideas that are well flushed out with several examples and concepts than to overwhelm your opponents with 7 or 10 points that may just be the same thing in a slightly different form. Generally you should aim for 4 or 5 points as PM, with Minister of the Crown (MC) taking 1 or 2. A good opposition will point out how poorly differentiated your arguments are. No really complex idea can be well explained in just a few minutes, so try to keep your arguments focused on the topic you have chosen. It is sometimes good to give your points catchy names that will help the judge keep them straight like "the people kill people point" (about responsible use of firearms) and the "American Pie point" (about the importance of patriotism). If you don't label your points, your opponents will and they will frame them in a negative light.

 Once you have presented your outline, then go on to examine each point in detail. Talk about the idea in reference to a fundamental principle; talk about the idea in a reference to a few examples; talk about the idea in reference to different ways of looking at the same general topic. You should constantly refer back to how it supports your case statement. Try to keep your side of the debate focused. This should take about 5 minutes, spending about one full minute on each argument. After you have outlined what you are going to talk about, and having talked about it, summarize what you have said. You must remember that, even if the judges take great notes, they can't really go over what you've said like if you had given them in a written speech. Your job is to remind them of the brilliant things you've said. So, reiterate the contention, restate your arguments and end by affirming the resolution ("Therefore, this resolution must stand"). Always try to end strongly with a full and confident phrase.

Minister of the Crown(MC) - 7 minutes

 The MC is a very difficult, often unappreciated, position that has three main tasks: 1) Damage Control, 2) Rebuilding, and 3) Introduction of a new line of argumentation. The MC will spend much of their time doing damage control. This means refuting the attacks of the opposition on the PM, and making it seem as though your fundamental principles remain untouched. A good strategy is to show how they have misunderstood the PM's point (even when they haven't), have contradicted themselves, or have used faulty logic. After showing how the opposition's attacks failed, you should reiterate your colleague’s points, sometimes reframing to make it seem stronger and more relevant. It is absolutely vital that the MC do more than simply respond to the Member of the Opposition's (MO). If the MC does not introduce at least one totally new not-heard-before-in-the-round argument then the debate will degenerate into a seemingly endless reiteration of the PM's speech. The MC must widen the debate, and if they do not, they should be called for it by the opposition. PM's often try to stick their MC with the weakest point that supports the case, but this is a foolhardy, if common, strategy. The MC's point should be conceptualized as an opportunity to keep the debate on track. By talking about something that captures the fundamental position of the government, you force the Leader of the Opposition (LO) to stay with the case rather than shifting it to what he wants to talk about. It is often helpful for the MC to take the most philosophical of the points, or the deepest one, since by the time he/she speaks the debate has hopefully moved from the superficial beginnings to a deeper approach to the contention.

 The MC should spend about 2-3 minutes on their new constructive point(s). The remainder of the time should be spent on rebuttal and reiteration. A good strategy is to attack what the MO said about the PM's first point, show how it fails, and then reiterate the first point reminding us how it supports the case statement; the process should be repeated for each successive point. Whenever possible try to tackle the points in the order they were presented. It is becoming increasingly common for the MO to introduce constructive arguments of their own. It is often important to rebut these too, but if they attempt to overload you with 4 or more points (often called an MO dump) be selective in what you refute, and don't let it distract you from what your main job is: supporting your partner and the government case. The MC should divide his/her speech into two blocks: construction, and rebuttal/reiteration. Debaters differ on what order they do the two. The author has always preferred to put construction first, since it ensures your point will be fully developed and gives the judge/opposition enough time to process it. Your last 30 seconds to a minute should be spent recapping what you've said, making sure to end by talking about your most important/powerful remark.

Prime Minister's Rebuttal - 3 minutes

 The Prime Minister's Rebuttal (PMR) is a 3-minute closing speech in which no new lines of argumentation or evidence may be introduced except in direct refutation to points made by the opposition. If the PM does, it is a legitimate for the opposition to rise on a point of order. Having said that, this very rarely happens in Canadian Parliamentary style, and should be done only if it is obvious that they are doing something unfair. The best strategy in the PMR is to restrict yourself to talking about (at most) 3 or 4 things. You should try to "boil it down" to what is the most important thing the judge should think about when judging the round. Ask yourself "what do we stand for?" and make it clear in the PMR. The PMR should be used to deal with the opposition arguments that have done the most damage to your side. This will normally include the LO's major constructive points. There is a lot to do in these 3-minutes, and getting used to the rhythm of this speech takes practice. Whenever possible, end with a summation of our side of the issue, so as to leave the judges with the government point of view last.

Debate Strategy: what the Government Should Consider

Round Preparations

 Review your case:

•      Can it be summarized in one sentence?

•      Do the arguments actually support the case statement?

•      Are there any contradictions?

 Know your opposition:

•      What are their strengths?

•      What are their weaknesses?

•      What is their response to each of my points likely to be?

 Know your role:

•      What is required of me for this case to work?

•      What is my responsibility as PM/MC?

 In-Round Tactics

Smart Bomb: Design your case so that there is an easy, obvious, way of responding to your arguments, however, there is an even stronger retort to each rebuttal. This allows you to trap the MO into responding in a particular way, which is easily dealt with making, his speech irrelevant.

The Ties that Bind: Like the government, the opposition is supposed to offer a coherent, coordinated, presentation. Often time if the MO says something foolish, the LO will try to distance himself from what his/her partner said, called cutting him/her loose. If this happens, be sure to point out any contradictions between the two, and let the judge know the LO is not supporting his partners.

Chapt 3 What the Opposition Does

Member of the Opposition (MO) - Seven Minutes

 This is not a very easy position. To do this well, you must be able to process a great amount of information quickly. You must also listen well to what the PM is trying to say. The MO is often described as a "machine gun", in contrast with the LO as the "wrecking ball"; it is the MO's job to poke as many holes as possible into the government case, even if they are superficial, whereas the LO zeroes in on the foundations and levels it with a deep, well-planned attack. MO's must be quick on their feet, you will be required to deliver an eloquent 7-minute reply as soon as the PM finishes, and you probably won't have a good handle on the case until 2 minutes into the PM's speech. The main thrust of the MO's speech is rebuttal; if you can come up with constructive points against the government so much better, but if you are preoccupied with construction at the expense of rebuttal you have failed. What is the difference between construction and rebuttal? Listening to most debaters you would think the line was blurry or non-existent. By definition construction is a reason for siding with your side of the house that is independent of anything the other side has said. A good way to test if a particular remark is construction is to ask yourself: "If I had heard only the case statement and not the PM's points, would this remark make sense?" If the answer is yes, it is construction; if no, it is rebuttal.

 Leave no stone unturned. Rebut everything they say at one level or another. Make certain their best arguments are dealt with most effectively by spending more time on those you deem vital to their case. Take their points in order if possible. This makes it easy for judges to follow your refutation. If possible, introduce a new argument. This could be a fact they were not aware of or a perspective they did not factor into their case. A frequent question asked by new debaters is, "How do I know what to say in rebuttal?" The answer is to train yourself to look at each of their points, and the case as a whole critically. This can be accomplished by internalizing a few stock questions. Most Debates are Need-Plan types, that is: the government identifies a problem and prepares a solution. You should always ask: What is the need the government is addressing? Is it a legitimate problem? What is the solution they are proposing? Does the solution adequately address the need they have identified? Are there better solutions to the same problem? who benefits from the solution? Are there any parties (especially minorities) who will be hurt or less well-off if we adopted the government plan? Are there larger interests at stake here? Would accepting the government plan mean endorsing a principle or philosophy we find abhorrent? Do their points logically support their case statement (i.e.: Is the case statement true BECAUSE of their point, or is their point true but not a reason for endorsing the case statement). Are their points arguments (pieces of logical reasoning supported by examples or deduction) or merely assertions (bold statements that sound persuasive but have not been adequately proven)? To illustrate this distinction: "removing guns would make America safer" - assertion. "The number one cause of household accidents in the USA are gun-related. If we limited the number of guns in the U.S.A., there would be fewer accidents. Jurisdictions with tighter gun control, like Canada, report lower gun-related household accidents. If guns are meant to protect individuals, why do they put children at higher risk for gun-related deaths?" - argument.

 Because the MO is the first speaker from the opposition, any problems with the government's case construction must be made here, or they will not be counted. If the case is tight, truistic, tautological, etc., you should let the judge know. Don't harp on the point, let the judge know briefly that there is something wrong and you believe he/she should consider it when making a decision.

Leader of the Opposition (LO) - Ten Minutes

 This is a very long speech. While the neophyte debater might find ten constructive minutes of speaking highly intimidating, as you become more practiced you will find the speech goes by too quickly. Because you are speaking so long, the key to this position is organization, much more so than any other position. Judges will be expecting a lot from you, and with just a bit of foresight you can give it to them and win the round. After a finely crafted ten-minute barrage from the LO, it is very difficult for the PM to pick up the pieces and win the round in only 3 minutes. The LO has several roles, he/she must: 1) Introduce at least one new constructive line of argumentation; 2) Refute the MC's constructive points; 3) Debunk the MC's refutation of what the MO has said; 4) Reiterate the MO's attacks on the PM, and add any new refutation he/she come up with. From this brief description it should become obvious that the LO has to pay careful attention to his partner and every other debater in the round. Of the 10 minutes speech, no new constructive argumentation may be introduced in the last 3 minutes (this is the same restriction that applies in the PMR). An LO should always start his/her speech with a road map of what they will say and how they will say it. For example: "I will begin my speech by discussing what is fundamental to this case: the perception of the constitution of the U.S.A. as a living, breathing, embodiment of American morality. I will show how it has to evolve to remain relevant, and apply this analysis to gun control. Next I will show how the MC's constructive point about how easy it would be for criminals to import guns, is false. Finally, I will show each of the PM's four constructive lines of argumentation have fallen and how none of my colleague, the MO's, criticisms were effectively."

 One of the unique things about the LO speech is the opportunity to introduce deep, well-thought-out constructive arguments. You have 21 minutes to think, so you better provide something good. This new line of argumentation is often called the crux, underlying principle, or fundamental philosophy of your side. It differs from the construction offered by other members of the debate in its depth and scope. Ideally, this point should be a paradigm, a lens with which to view everything that has been that has been said so far in the debate, which clearly shows that you were in the right. The LO's constructive should always add something to the debate, and never be re-hash or trite. Having set these hallowed standards, you may wonder how one comes up with such a gem. First of all, few LO constructive reach this ideal (or perhaps idyll), and many extremely successful debaters the author knows have merely clothed rebuttal as deep constructive. This underscores the point that language, and, framing is everything. Moreover, most of us intuitively know what the crux of a case is, we just haven't articulated it or allowed ourselves the freedom to think creatively and look at the round as a whole. A good way of finding it is to ask yourself what the fundamental assumption of the government case is. For example, if the government is arguing that research using fetuses is wrong because it violates the right of the fetus, the fundamental assumption is that the fetus is the sort of thing that has rights. You may want to ask what is it that gives a thing rights? This might lead you to a discussion of personhood, and when an entity becomes a person. Although it is often referred to as an underlying principle/philosophy, the LO constructive can really be anything of sufficient depth that will win the round for you. While the crux should be something new, it is also important tp not be too estranged from the round, that is too unconnected with the things that have gone before you. If your constructive is not persuasive, and you have distracted yourself from the round, you may be marked down for not being "on the ball."

 We have dealt with the tasks of rebuttal and rebuilding at length in the MO and MC sections, respectively. One advantage the LO has is the ability to "telescope" the round, to view the government case as a whole. It will often happen that an MC did not listen to his PM carefully enough, or has misunderstood him, and will make arguments that contradict what his partner said. Such contradictions, often referred to as stabs in the back, should be pounced on relentlessly. Debating is a team sport, and any sign (even when unintentional) of poor partnership should be brought to the judge's attention This point cuts both ways; it is very tempting to cut the MO loose in the LO speech, when you feel your partner has missed the boat or said some things you rather he/she hadn't. One debater on the circuit at the author's time was notorious for entirely ignoring his partner's contribution and for introducing 6 or 7 new lines of argumentation in the LO speech. The disadvantages are two-fold: 1) Many members from this person's club were unwilling to debate with this person, 2) An astute government would point out in the PMR that the LO failed to do the job (since there wasn't any deep analysis of the case), and must have lacked total confidence in the MO.

 How to organize your speech is up to you. The one restriction is that your construction ought to at least lightly outlined before the last three minutes of the speech, or you are in violation of the rule. One useful technique is to begin by introducing your construction, and then go thorugh the MC and PM's points and show how they fail in relation with your constructive. For example: "When we realize the fetus is not a person and has no rights, it becomes clear that the MC's point about protection in the criminal code is moot." Make sure also to mention your partner's arguments. You should spend around three minutes on construction. The last 2-3 minutes of your speech should be reserved for summarizing what your side had said and why you deserve to win. You should try to end with the material you felt resonated most strongly with the judge. As with any position, aim to finish strong. One final comment on voice modulation: with 10 minutes to speak it is imperative that you alter your tone, pitch, and rate to keep the judge interested. One useful trick the author has learned, is to change your tone every 3rd minute (e.g.: begin dramatic and booming, become slow and sensible, finish with all the passion you can muster).

Debate Strategy: what the Opposition Should Consider

Round Preparations

 Know your government:

•      Who is their strongest speaker?

•      Are they known to run a certain type of case?

 Think of cases:

•      What might they run on this resolution (for straight resolutions)?

•      What cases are common at this tournament?

•      What cases are common for this school?

 Know your role:

•      What is my role as MO/LO?

•      How can I help my partner improve?

 In-Round Tactics

Third Option: In many cases the government will say, we stand for X and therefore the opposition stands for Y. Identify what the government expects you to argue and refuse to argue that way by finding a third option. For example, if the case is, "President Clinton should mention Mark Macguire and not Sammy Sosa in his State of the Union address", the government expects you to argue for Sammy Sosa. The third option, however, is to argue that baseball players have no place in the State of the Union address.

Paradigm Shift: It is sometimes possible for the opposition (especially the LO) to shift the case away from anything the government has said, and towards what they want to talk about. For example, if the case is: "Fraternities should be forced to accept female applicants" a paradigm shift would be to say that such a move is contrary to feminist interests (rather than establishing the fraternities would suffer for it). You could argue that to steer women to fraternities is to admit sororities, uniquely female institutions, can't cut it on their own and that only through male-conceptualized and dominated institutions can women find satisfaction. When a paradigm shift succeeds, it tends to distract the government speeches away from their own points and forces them to focus on what you've said. This works especially well just before the PMR. However, if it fails, a paradigm shift may leave you estranged from the round.

Chapt 4 Case-Building

 So you get Gov. Unlucky you. In open rounds (rounds which are held in front of an audience, usually quarters, semis, and finals) there is a marked tendency for governments to lose. Why is this the case? Largely due to a widespread weakness in the building of cases. Even the most seasoned debating veteran will admit that when it comes to case construction, he/she is not an expert. Having said all that, case construction can be easy to learn, it's just difficult to master. We will talk about 4 phases: 1) Selecting a case; 2) Formulating a case statement; 3) Generating arguments; 4) Dividing up points.

1. Case Selection

 Case selection is the first thing a government should work on. Choosing cases you and your partner are comfortable with is essential. Many a time a debater has come up with a brilliant baseball case, or Hitchcock case, but if his/her partner does not like the case or does not feel comfortable with it, running it is suicidal. Having a large number of case ideas is the best bet to find one both you and your partner are satisfied with. Where can you find cases? They are all around you. In the author's first year a good third of his cases came from TV shows, another third from courses, and a final third from arguments with friends. A good strategy is for both you and your partner to carry a little slip of paper in your pocket and right down any case (even if you will later reject it as junk) that pops into your mind as you go about your daily life.

 There are two major categories of cases:

Philosophical: A debate on a preexisting issue where both sides are well known. Government objective is not to state a problem and propose a solution, but rather to choose one of the sides available and defend it. Debates of this nature are usually about serious issues that cannot be resolved (i.e. the existence of God, moral relativism vs. moral absolutism).

Needs-Plan: A debate where the government outlines a problem and advocates a solution. These can involve current affairs, historical problems, or hypothetical situations. This is very common in Canadian debating.

 There are several subtypes which are good to keep in mind:

Time-Place Set: The Government begins the debate by identifying the speaker (the head judge or moderator to whom all comments are addressed) as a particular person (generally a historical figure) and advocates that that person do something contrary to historical fact. For example: "You Mr. Speaker are the chief of the Navajo tribe right before the Second World War. The President of the U.S.A. has asked that people from your tribe teach military officers your language to use as codes. We say refuse." The government then debates the case in a manner similar to any regular case. It is very important to avoid anachronisms: ideas or facts that the historical figure would not know since they haven't happened yet (e.g.) you can't say that because they bombed Pearl Harbor if you do nothing you too may be a target because Pearl Harbor has not occurred yet). It is best to appeal to things you know about the historical figure (e.g.: If you were running a time place set which urges Socrates to run away rather than be executed, you might want to appeal to Socratic ideas about justice, the purpose of life, etc.). You should never run a time place set unless you are genuinely interested in the setting or characters; if you want to debate a particular principle that is at play, you are better running it as a hypothetical situation. Although a former Hart House Debating Club Secretary and teacher of the author believed doing time place sets using characters from fiction was unfair, prevailing opinion seems to be that it is alright as long as it is well-constructed. Time-Place Sets give you an opportunity to introduce cases outside the policy/philosophy debating mold.

 When opposing a Time-Place Set it is often good to take a role yourself, or even to make one up. For example, if the time place set is: "You are Captain Picard on Star Trek: The Next Generation, we say do not resist assimilation by the Borg" a good opp might take the role of Data and argue from an android's point of view about the values of uniqueness and humanity. Be on the look out for government anachronisms, and point them out for the judge. Be creative, and try to get inside the head of the person. The Third Option approach is very useful in Time-Place Sets, since the government will often present the debate as deciding between two dichotomous choices.

Hypothetical: If you think of a great moral dilemma, or possible situation (a "what if") that has never happened, you can construct the debate in terms of a hypothetical. While some debaters, including the author, have dishonestly described hypotheticals as if they actually happened, if you get caught doing so it will undermine your credibility.

 In addition there are a few case selection no-no’s, some of which are obvious:

Truism: Do not debate cases that are true by definition. For example: "This house believes the sky is blue." Debating cases should always be contentious.

Tautology: Don't debate cases which are true by definition. For example: "We believe that Horror films of the 1980's, which we will define as cheap repetitive slasher flicks without inspiration, lacked creativity."

Specific Knowledge: Do not debate something that the average university student would not be able to understand unless he/she were a specialist in your field, had read an obscure book, etc. For example: "We believe that serial models of psycholinguistics speech production are superior to parallel models." How specific is specific knowledge? A good question. Anything in the newspapers, media, pop culture, etc. is fair game. In addition, you can bring in debate cases from your field of expertise or area of interest, as long as you explain your case well enough that an average opposition can understand it. You should never run a case just because you know a lot about it and think other people don't. When opposing a specific knowledge case, it is imperative that the MO briefly mentions in his/her opening that the case is specific knowledge. Do the best you can, and the judge will probably reward you. Remember that any debating case should be reducible to basic underlying principles. Talk about what you do know.

Tight Cases: Do not debate a case which so heavily favors the government that it is unfair to the opposition. Generally, a good rule is: if you can't think of at least two arguments against the case, then it is tight. Sometimes it is hard to tell when a case is tight. When in doubt ask someone else from your school what they think. It is better to err on the side of caution, since most judges will mark you down for a tight case. In Opposition, if handed a tight case, the MO should briefly let the judge know he/she thinks the case is tight. Do your best to find something to argue, and you will probably be rewarded. Don't repeatedly whine that the case is tight, once or twice is enough to send the message.

Generating Arguments:

 Government teams need to know what they are running. You should be able to define your case in one sentence (e.g.: "Native Canadians should say that until self-government is recognized, negotiations with Canada will never be over"). This fulfills the key components of case-building: it is a normative statement (notice the word "should") and provides a clear definition of what the government team is proposing. Development of the case-statement is the vital component to effective Canadian debating. It provides all speakers with a common frame of reference on which to focus for the duration of the debate. If you can't condense your case into a one-sentence statement, it is probably too complicated. Bad case statements will screw up an entire round of debate, and all debaters will get low scores.

Generating Arguments:

 So you have a case and a case statement, now for the tricky part: what arguments support your case? At this stage you and your partners should brainstorm together, throwing out as many ideas as possible, and then sort the wheat from the chaff. One technique the author has found useful is to think of points from different realms. The acronym S.P.E.R.M. for Social, Political, Economic, Religious, and Moral, represents the most likely (but not only) areas you will find arguments. By trying to think of an argument from each realm, you are likely to find at least a few and also will have a good variety. The government side of a debate can be compared to a house. The roof is your case statement. Supporting the roof is 4 or 5 pillars, your arguments. The pillars rest on a foundation, your fundamental philosophy. As an opposition, your goal is to make the roof cave in. The MO does this by knocking out each pillar, the arguments. The LO does this by attacking the foundation, the underlying principle.

 An argument must support the case statement, rather than merely be a true statement; it must be a reason for agreeing with the case statement. Though this sounds obvious, it often isn't. A good way of determining whether an argument supports the case statement is to apply the "D'abramo Because Test." Say the case statement, then "because", then your argument. For example: "This house supports a corporate free campus because Point 1. If it makes sense, your argument supports your case, if it doesn't make sense then it really isn't a real argument. Whenever possible, you should try to determine what the underlying principle of your case is (much as the LO would for his/her speech). It is likely that the opposition will try to challenge the principle, or try to replace it with another one. You ought to be able to defend the principle, and it's nice in the PMR to be able to tie everything together. An argument is not merely a statement of your point. You should explain what you mean, ground your point in reason, provide an example to show that it holds, apply it to the situation at hand, etc. In opposition it is not merely enough to repeat the government's points in a funny voice. You have to look for logical errors in their reasoning, provide counterexamples, show that it doesn't apply to the given situation, etc.

Dividing Up Points:

 Very little is often said about this aspect of case building. Most of the time the PM will take the four best or most coherent points for himself/herself and leave the MC a lousy point or a point that doesn't fit the rest. While this sometimes works, it can potentially lower the MC's score (and therefore you team's score) and make the MC look estranged from the round. A much better strategy is to let the MC choose the point he/she wants, since it is likely that this will be the only construction the MC will do. This is not a hard and fast rule; sometimes a point is so crucial to the case making sense that you will need to get it out early in the round. It is more a general approach: PM's should avoid hogging all the good points, and leaving the MC with nothing.