Building a Case in 15 Minutes

The 15-Minute Framework

Fifteen minutes sounds impossibly short the first time, but with a structured approach it becomes sufficient for a strong case. Experienced teams divide their prep into distinct phases rather than free-form brainstorming, which tends to produce scattered, underdeveloped arguments.

Minutes 0-3: Motion analysis. Read the motion carefully. Identify the motion type (policy, values, actor). Determine the burden of proof for each side. Define any ambiguous terms. Identify the key stakeholders. This phase is about understanding what you need to prove, not generating arguments yet.

Minutes 3-8: Argument generation and selection. Brainstorm as many arguments as possible — write them all down without filtering. Then ruthlessly select the two or three strongest. A common mistake is spending all five minutes on the first good idea. Force yourself to generate at least five options before selecting.

Minutes 8-13: Argument development. For each selected argument, develop the full logic chain: claim, warrant (the reasoning), example or mechanism, and impact (why it matters). Allocate arguments between speakers. Decide the order of arguments — usually strongest first.

Minutes 13-15: Opening lines and contingency. Write the first two sentences of each speech. Discuss how to handle likely opposition attacks. For closing teams, finalize two or three possible extension directions.

Working With Your Partner

The 15-minute prep is a team exercise. The most efficient approach is parallel work with regular check-ins. During minutes 3-8, both partners brainstorm independently, then share and compare. This produces more diverse ideas than brainstorming together, where the first idea often anchors the entire discussion.

During development (minutes 8-13), divide the work: each partner develops their own speech's arguments in detail while periodically confirming that the arguments connect and do not overlap. The first speaker's arguments should set up the second speaker's arguments — if the PM establishes the problem and mechanism, the DPM can focus on stakeholder impacts and responses to likely opposition.

For closing teams, the prep must also account for flexibility. Since you do not know what the opening team will say, prepare arguments along two or three distinct analytical lines. After hearing the opening half, you will choose the line that is most clearly differentiated from what was already said.