Case Construction Playbook
Build cases that win rounds — framework, contentions, evidence cards, and airtight warranting.
Framework
Value + value criterion (LD)
Every LD case needs a value (the ethical end you're pursuing) and a value criterion (the standard that measures progress toward the value). Together they tell the judge how to decide the round.
Key Points
- Common values: justice, morality, governmental legitimacy, security.
- Common criteria: maximizing welfare (utilitarianism), protecting autonomy (Kant), structural equality (Rawls).
- Your criterion must directly test the resolution — 'maximizing welfare' fails if the resolution is about rights that override welfare.
Role of the ballot / burden of proof
In PF and Policy, frameworks tend to be 'role of the ballot' (RoB) statements that tell the judge what winning looks like. E.g., 'Vote for the side that demonstrably reduces systemic harm.'
Key Points
- Link your framework to measurable impacts — abstract frameworks lose to concrete ones.
- Pre-empt the other side's likely framework by addressing it directly.
Contentions
The claim-warrant-impact structure
Every contention follows three moves. Skip one and the argument collapses under scrutiny.
Claim
The one-sentence statement of the argument: 'Rent control causes a long-run decline in housing supply.'
Warrant
The reason the claim is true — evidence, logic, or both. 'A 2019 Stanford study of San Francisco (Diamond, McQuade, Qian) found rent-controlled buildings were 15% more likely to convert to condos or be demolished.'
Impact
Why the judge should care — what harm, benefit, or value-link the claim produces. 'A declining supply pushes rents up city-wide, disproportionately harming new and low-income tenants — the policy's intended beneficiaries.'
Evidence cards
Policy and PF debaters carry 'cards' — a tag + citation + underlined quotation + analytical summary.
Key Points
- Tag: a 6-10 word argument-style headline, not a neutral description.
- Citation: author (credentials), publication, date, URL.
- Underline only the specific words that support the claim — judges may ask to see the card.
Worked Examples
PF sample contention — AI regulation
Resolution: 'The US federal government should regulate generative AI models.' Pro contention:
Key Points
- Claim: Unregulated generative AI is already producing measurable harms in elections, labor markets, and mental health.
- Warrant: 2024 Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI report documented a 2x increase in AI-driven political disinformation during primary elections.
- Impact: Without federal baseline rules, states are passing fragmented laws (CA AB 2013, NY S.8214) — the resulting patchwork slows compliance and favors large incumbents.
LD sample case — capital punishment
Resolution: 'Capital punishment ought to be abolished.' Affirmative framework:
Key Points
- Value: justice.
- Value criterion: respecting the inherent dignity of persons (Kantian categorical imperative).
- Contention 1: The death penalty treats persons as means to deterrence ends — violating dignity.
- Contention 2: Empirical deterrence evidence is null — Donohue & Wolfers (2005) demonstrate studies showing deterrence are statistically underpowered.
FAQ
How many contentions should my case have?
Two to three. More than that and you can't develop any of them in the time available. Pick the strongest and deepest over broadest.
What are 'blocks' and do I need them?
Blocks are pre-written responses to the most common arguments you'll face. Yes, build them — they free up your in-round brain to weigh and extend. Every top debater has a block file organized by argument.
Continue learning
Explore related MUN guides to deepen your skills.