Many debaters have already started preparing cases, or at least researching the resolution. Maybe you have always wanted to write your own case, but do not know where to start with researching and understanding the topic. I would argue that research is integral to debating. If your goal is success in competition, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic will help you to win rounds with far more consistency. If your goal is to learn and gain life skills, understanding something thoroughly before you talk about it is likewise far more persuasive and enlightening both for you and for your audience. Let me break down the basics of understanding the resolution and how to research your topics…
Ideally, I believe, you want to do your own research on the resolution before you look through any casebooks. That way you will come with an open mind to form a perspective based on your own research, reading others’ opinions for what they say without an external bias. When you read a casebook it should function as a secondary source of evidence, possible arguments, and cases to practice against; your ideas drive the casebook, rather than the casebook driving your ideas. Further, it’s just good practice to rely primarily on your own efforts and will help you later in life.
The following are some things that I have found to be helpful:
Discover keywords. The 2020 NCFCA resolution was in democratic elections, the public’s right to know ought to be valued over the candidate’s right to privacy. If you plug that into a search bar, the results are going to be almost exclusively from debate leagues and clubs. Obviously, there is far more information than that on the topic; how do we find those? First, do not enter the whole resolution. Search for the keywords; for instance, “democratic elections right to know vs privacy”. Google gives me better results for this search. You will also want to think of variations of these terms and note them as you come across them (you are going to want to have a Word document or maybe a less linear whiteboard at hand for recording key terms, philosophies, significant names, etc. even before you start writing your cases). I recall the above search bringing a number of results about the Democratic Party in particular. The resolution is not asking for partisan debates, so instead of democratic elections, you could put public elections. Another potential search is candidate disclosure in public elections. Notice in this last one that I did not put one thing vs another – you are not necessarily looking for articles pitting X against Y, but rather investigating the basic principles, moral and democratic values, and philosophies at play in the debate and its broad context (for example, why do democratic elections exist? What moral basis are they founded upon? Where does the right to privacy come from? When can it be limited? All these are things to understand before you even compare the two terms in the resolution). Of course, this is merely an example; the same principles should apply to your own research for this year’s resolution.
Know the key players. As you are researching, you are going to find references to key players and philosophers, who had ideas relevant to the debate topic. Make sure you know (ideally be able to recall) the basic ideas of each philosopher. Once you start preparing evidence, you will want some of their quotes both summarizing their general philosophies and addressing your resolution. Having an understanding of the policies in various countries, and the logistics and consequences thereof, is also beneficial.
Be aware of irrelevant results. There may be results that use similar terminology but are not relevant to your debate. For instance, in last year’s resolution about the proactionary principle vs the precautionary principle in innovation, “precautionary principle” brought up more results about environmentalism than innovation. Know these early so you can tune them out (and know when someone may be using irrelevant evidence).
Find key applications. You will want to be looking for key instances when the two values (the things being compared, such as the individual’s property rights and the community’s economic interest) come into conflict. Pet ownership, while a matter of individual property rights, is unlikely to be a major factor. Eminent domain, on the other hand, probably will be. Finding these key applications will also help you to expand your search results by looking into specific fields. “Eminent domain and private property” may yield results that would not have been as easy to find with “community’s economic interest and private property”.
Your goal in initial research is to understand the conflict and internalize the key ideas, before you start outlining your case. After you decide what main arguments you want to use and what you should be prepared to refute, you will use similar principles to find and cite evidence (and it is always useful to gather and cite potential evidence as you come across it rather than crunching right before a tournament).
Right now, you are trying to immerse yourself in the various understandings of the issue, and arguments used. The next step is to sort through the research and clarify the resolution into a single debatable conflict, which will be covered in the next post.
Isaiah Depp competed in NCFCA since 2019, initially joining because of his speech impediment. He experienced a fair level of success in two years of LD debate, qualifying to Nationals the first and only doing one tournament the second. Instead of learning from a local club, he gleaned from many classes and coaches and formed his own debate theory and opinions. What is more important to me than success in competition is the personal growth that the Lord has effected in me through NCFCA, giving me far more confidence in communication and clarity of thought.
Remember, Lasting Impact! does have a NCFCA TP Sourcebook, as well as a LD Guidebook in the SHOP at www.lastingimpact.info