A topic that is probably seldom-addressed when discussing debate (but hopefully not boring) is that of argumentation structure — how do teams actually prepare their speeches for events? Certainly you can’t just walk up to a podium and randomly say words in order to win a debate, it requires planning and mindful structure to convince a judge and beat your opponent. Since speech structure can change depending on the event, I’m going to talk about Public Forum here (perhaps I’ll compare this structure with that of NPDA Parli next time).
If you’ll recall, PF speeches are pre-written for a monthly topic. This is an important distinction from other events which may be impromptu because it means that a lot more is expected from teams who are debating each other. Since there’s so much time to prepare before tournaments, evidence should be everywhere (we call evidence “cards” in debate) and your speech really has no excuse for any grammar mistakes that might come up while you’re reading it.
The Claim Data Warrant argumentation structure, a case structure that is becoming outdated in PF debate.
Your first thought of formatting a PF speech might be the same way that you’ve always been taught to write persuasive essays: Claim, Data, Warrant paragraphs. While this works (my partner and I did it for a year), there is an even better way to write cases that we stole from the #4 team in the country after they destroyed us. We call this Claim, Warrant, Impact format. It’s pretty simple: you begin a “contention” (a single section of your case that focuses on one argument) with a tagline, a little phrase that provides the bare minimum of what your argument is about. For example, taglines can be, “A carbon tax would make America green again.” This is the same as a claim in a CDW paragraph, just much shorter and to-the-point. Next comes the warrants, where you explain why your argument makes sense and how your argument functions. This is kind of difficult to convey, but a warrant for a contention on why a Carbon Tax increases natural gas fracking might explain that when companies find that coal becomes expensive, they switch to lower carbon content natural gas simply because it’s cheaper (less carbon = less tax). That’s a bare-bones argument as a single sentence, but a proper warrant would explain the logic behind such an argument with cards to support that idea empirically. The final part to the contention are your impacts, which are the consequences your argument has for the world. Continuing with our last example, an impact might be increased climate change — natural gas fracking releases methane into the atmosphere, which is 86 times as impactful on global warming as CO2 is, therefore speeding up climate change.
Impacts are what complete your case — if your arguments have no impact on the world, why should anyone care?
Hopefully you can see why this format is useful, particularly in something like PF. When you only have 4 minutes to deliver a constructive speech, a format that is very to-the-point is a must, and this one certainly is: it tells you what the argument is about, how it works, and what the impacts are in a quick contention. These contentions may be anywhere from half a page to a full page 1.3 spaced (I know, weird spacing), and there are usually 3 contentions per speech. Anything more and you might be racing to get all of your words out during your 4 minutes — not appealing to judges, who dislike speed a lot of the time. By using this format and picking strong arguments, teams can efficiently describe solid arguments while still maintaining crystal clear argumentation structure. Maybe this would even work in everyday arguments — try it the next time that you’re convincing your mom to get you a new shirt!
Five things you need to know about journal Impact Factors (Day 88)
http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/02/complete-your-argument.html
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.