Diana's Guide to Awesome Case Writing

Abide by the 3 S's and you will do SUPER! ;]

Simple

your argument should be easy to understand, or else the judge will feel uncomfortable voting

for you! Don't mistake this for a case full of stock arguments. You can still venture out into unique arguments. Just
make sure that your explanations of these arguments are simple and easy to understand.

Strategic Don't write a case where you must win fifty things in order to win the round. You want to be
able to pick and choose between offense and defense. It'll make debating and winning a whole lot easier.

Sneaky It should seem nice and friendly on the outside, but there are key components of your case that
can be extended to win you the round!

__________________________________________________________
Start with definitions
Make sure that you have definitions that are RELEVENT and
ADVANTAGEOUS for your case position. Don't define words like 'to', 'the',
'resolved' if it has nothing to do with the big picture debate.
It is also better if you define phrases, such as "treat as a matter of",
"guarantee adequate housing" or "public health". You don't have to provide
definitions for single words. Grouping them will save you a whole lot of
time.
State your value
My value is...
To uphold this value means to...
This is the proper value for the round because...
State your value criterion
My value criterion is... [There should be a verb/action so that the judge
knows how to evaluate your value criterion. Is it the maximization of life?

minimizing of oppression? maintaining a stable economy? distributing equal

power? If the judge does not know how your value criterion works, then they
won't know if you've met it]
What is the status of your value criterion? [This does not have to be
stated in your case, but you should know. Do you HAVE to meet this value
criterion or is it a mere suggestion? Sufficiency vs. Necessity]
Are there any burdens that you or your opponent must meet to win the
round? [These are always STRATEGIC to have because if your opponent
fails to meet the burden you place on him, then they lose the round! Quick
AFF ballot!]
Onto the contentions
Claim. (The criminal justice system is capable of reducing the amount
of crimes that form as a result of drug abuse)
Warrant. (Harvard University has found that there were less crimes
after 1990 which is when people started going to jail for drug abuse.)
Impact. (The correlation between drug abuse and crimes is evident by
the Harvard University study. This shows that we will be able to promote the
greatest amount of societal security by incarcerating drug abusers since drug
abusers tend to commit crimes anyways.)
Your actual contention should be MORE FULLY DEVELOPED than
this.
How to format your evidence the RIGHT WAY.

Zbigniew Brzezinski; The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy

and Its Geostrategic Imperatives; Basic Books, 1997, p.40
The view of many experts for some time now (long before September 11, 2001), has been that future threats (and even most
current conflicts) will no longer be between states, but be internal wars, instability resulting from failed states, or
acts of terrorism. That being the case, it is suggested that foreign policy and militaries should change and adapt for
this. Instead, we have seen continued research and deployment of weapons and planes with the idea of defending a nation
from external forces in mind, which is deemed as fairly unlikely and lacks consideration of alternatives to military

major powers, as has been the case throughout history, to retain their
dominant position in world affairs [with] a strong military
has been a must to keep in check any other nation or region that might
have ambitions to gain power, as well. As a result, the expansion of the military and other
policies relating to maintaining the dominant position is
typically pursued. Former US National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, shows that
these concerns have not gone away in our modern
era: For the United States,
Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of
geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of
geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests
of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the
expenditure. But for

long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that
hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to
prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to
keep the barbarians from coming together.

What is actually going on here...

Author Name; Article Title; Article Source, YEAR of publication,
Page Number; (the website your got your card from is optional.
Personally, I think it looks really ugly and distracting to have in
your citations)
This is what I do the part of the evidence I am going to
read. This is what happens to the part of the evidence that I would rather not read. Never powertage. If you get
caught, you will probably lose the round. It has happened before!

Questions to ask yourself...

Why is my value the value for the round?
Why is my value criterion the best criterion in which the round should be judged on?
Do I meet my criterion through my contentions?
Why do my contentions even matter? (Did I IMPACT!?)
How many contentions do I need to win in my case in order to win the round?
Are there any inherent flaws in my case? Do I ever contradict myself?
If I lose my value criterion, will I be able to link into another generic criterion?