Use this space to type a thesis statement that explains IN ONE OR TWO SENTENCES your entire case.

Write your introduction. Though this appears at the beginning of your case, you may want to wait to write this till you have filled out the rest of your case. An introduction gives a general preview of your case as well as provides the opportunity to persuade the judge in principle. You will be leading the judge through a structured, 8-minute argument, so present the introduction in simple terms that will give the judge a general understanding of where you are taking this.

OBSERVATION 1. TOPICALITY:

THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE MEETS A REASONABLE DEFINITION OF THE RESOLUTION

A. Definitions

Here you want to define the various terms within the resolution as the Blue Book goes into detail explaining. There is not a solid definition of this term, and if the Affirmative team is wishy-washy in their attempt to define it for the round, they will most certainly be hit hard with a topicality argument.

B. Analysis

Take the time to analyze the resolution. This is the attempt by your team to assess the resolution for what it says and give confidence to the judge that your case is topical.

OBSERVATION 2. HARMS

The harms of the case shows that these flaws in the status quo (the inherency you just proved) are significantly harmful (often referred to as significance). Just like with inherency, the evidence should be properly cited and should support the case's thesis.

A. X is happening to the status quo

Citation

Evidence

B. X causes Y (Y = loss of human rights, economic loss, death, sickness, etc.)

Citation

Evidence

C. X causes Z (another negative impact)

Citation

Evidence

OBSERVATION 3. INHERENCY

This section will be backed up with evidence that shows that the status quo (how the United States handles her protectorates) is flawed. The important thing to prove is that a change in policy is needed, not just a simple fix of the current policy. This can be done using Supreme Court cases, governmental documentation, periodical opinions, and the like. All evidence used to prove inherency should be properly cited and should support the case's thesis.

A. Current policy is X

Citation

Evidence

B. X is failing

Citation

Evidence

C. Attempts to fix X are not working

Citation

Evidence

To solve these harms, we offer the following plan. Here you will give your plan to solve the harms you just presented. You do this by presenting a number of "planks," which are given implementations to your overall plan. Like the contentions of your observations, your planks must be topical and should be written to support your thesis.

Plank 1                  Write your plank here.

Plank 2                  Write your plank here.

Plank 3                  Write your plank here.

Plank 4                  And so on…

OBSERVATION 4. SOLVENCY

Solvency does exactly what the term implies: it solves the case. The contentions provided in the solvency often directly relates to your case's harms and inherency. Harm 1 often is solved with contention 1 of solvency, and so on through this section. Continue to support your thesis with every contention, never veering into extra-topical areas.

A. Subpoint 1

Citation

Evidence

B. Subpoint 2

Citation

Evidence

Now take the time to write your conclusion. You may want to state, word-for-word, the thesis of your entire case. Revisit your introduction and ask yourself, "How does this case convince the judge that the plan should be implemented?" Then write this argument down in the conclusion.

Source: http://www.trainingminds.org