WHAT TO DO ON CASE BUILDING?

Well, the first thing to do on case building is knowing where your team mates are! I could not emphasise more on the importance of that. But assuming that you have had your team mates (not the imaginary one), motions verbatim, opponents (again, not the imaginary one), and knowledge on which room you will be debating in, this essay will elaborate on what are the necessary contents of affirmative’s and negative’s case.
In principle the affirmative’s role is to convince the adjudicator to support the motion and the negative’s role should convince the adjudicator to have the motion fall. As for what exactly the affirmative or the negative should prove in making their cases differs from the types of the motion.

There are 2 types of motions:
1. Value-judgement motions (e.g.: THBT that prostitution is degrading female).
In this kind of motion the debate is on proving the idea. It is not necessarily about taking particular action/policy.
In the example of the motion,
the debate should not be about whether prostitution should be legalised or not, but it should be about whether commercial sex trade is something that degrades women or not.
In proving an idea, usually the affirmative team needs to consider:
• How they will prove it (indicator of measurement)?
In the example of the motion, to prove that prostitution is degrading, the affirmative needs to explain what is/are the criteria(on) of 'degrading to women' before they can prove why prostitution fits to that/those criteria(on). For example, something is considered 'degrading to women' when it ‘does not treat women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion’.
In setting the criterion, the affirmative needs to explain the reasoning of why the criterion is valid. So, affirmative needs to explain why something that does 'not treat women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion' is indeed degrading.
• Provide the assertion, reasoning and examples to prove the criteria(on)
In the example of the motion, after setting and explaining the criterion of degrading as 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion', the affirmative team then needs to prove why prostitution fits to that criterion. The affirmative can prove this in various ways. One example is to look at the way the individual sex workers are being treated by the clients. Another example is to look at how the sex worker as an occupation is seen by the society. These various angles are the team splits.
In negating the idea, usually the negative team can choose one of these 2 options:
• Reject the criteria set by affirmative, set a new criteria, then prove why the motion does not fit to negative's criteria
In the example of the motion, the negative disagrees to 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion' means degrading. In disagreeing to the criteria, the negative should provide the reasoning or rebuttal to the affirmative's reasoning. Subsequently, the negative should set the new criteria(on). For example, something is considered degrading if it does 'not allowing women to have options'. Negative also need to provide reasoning why negative's criteria is a more suitable.
Then the negative should prove why prostitution does not fit to the negative's criterion - that prostitution is a form of option. Again, the negative can prove this in various angles, from the angle of ‘freedom to do control one's body’ or ‘freedom to define morality’, etc. Again, these various angles can be the team splits.
• Accept the criteria set by the affirmative but prove that the motion does not fit to that criteria
In the example of the motion, the negative can also agree that the criterion of degrading is 'not treating women as a subject with intelligence, will and emotion'. In that case, the negative should prove that prostitution does not fit to that criterion - that prostitution still allows rooms for women to be seen with intelligence, will and emotion.
2. Proposal motions (e.g.: THW ban prostitution).
In the proposal motion, the arguments of both teams should not solely be in the idea level, but also about what action should be taken by a certain party
In the example of the motion, the action is banning prostitution by the government/state. It is not enough to prove the notion that prostitution is degrading female, but also to prove why the government should regulate something that degrades female.
In doing so, the affirmative team should:
• Present a problem - the context that makes affirmative wants to propose something
In the example of the motion, the problem can be the huge number of female that are being degraded as sex workers - that it is not acceptable for dignified countries to allow such practices to take place. In other motions, the problems can vary from environmental problem, poverty, violence, etc.
• Put forward a proposal
In the example of the motion, the proposal can be for the government of a particular country (that is currently legalizing prostitution) to ban prostitution. By banning, the affirmative needs to specify what form of banning: banning the street solicitation, or brothel house or all forms of sex trade.
Affirmative should also prove that the proposal is feasible - can be implemented
• Prove that the proposal will address the problem
In the example of the motion, the affirmative should prove that banning prostitution will significantly contribute in minimizing female degradation.
The affirmative does not necessarily have to prove that the proposal will eliminate the problem completely by arguing that their proposal will solve poverty or environmental destruction. But it is imperative to prove that the proposal does make a significant contribution in addressing the problem.
• Prove that the proposal will not create greater harm or that the harm created by the proposal is minor compare to the importance of the proposal’s benefit.
In the example of the motion, the affirmative will have to prove why the proposal will not create greater harm to female/society/freedom. Affirmative can argue that the proposal will not at all hurt the female sex workers livelihood, society’s economy, or the women’s freedom.
Alternatively, the affirmative can acknowledge that the proposal might mean no income for the sex workers (acknowledging harm). But in comparison, for these female not to be degraded and receive state’s protection will benefit them as a whole. Thus, affirmative acknowledging the harm, but argue that it is insignificant compare to the overall benefit
In negating the affirmative case, the negative team should
• Defend the current system or alternative proposal
In the example of the motion, the negative can either defend the current condition of legal prostitution. Or create an alternative proposal: not allowing prostitution freely but allowing it only on certain places (localization)
In defending current system/alternative proposal the negative can do one or more of the following strategy:
• Disagree that there is any problem in the first place
In the example of the motion, the negative can argue that there is no female degradation because the sex workers are living a life where they choose to do what they want to do. Thus, there is no need to have the proposal.
• Acknowledging that there is a problem but the proposal does not address the problem
Another way of negating in the example of the motion, the negative can agree that there is female degradation in the practice of prostitution. However, the proposal of banning prostitution will not stop prostitution from existing or significantly minimize it. The prostitution can still go underground. Hence, it does not address the problem.
• Prove that the proposal will create greater harm
Negative can also agree that there is a problem of female degradation and that the proposal addresses the problem. But banning prostitution will create more significant harm. It will cause underground prostitution that cannot be controlled by the government and makes the female degradation worse than it was when the prostitution was legal.
It is important to note that the team should make careful judgment in choosing which strategy to run with to avoid inconsistency in negative case. It is often the case that each speaker in the team runs different negating strategy that looks like self-contradiction. Another way of avoiding contradiction is to use the “even if” strategy.

Finally, this essay only serves as guidance. At the end of the day, how to case build? To try to develop a case that will make the adjudicators support or against the motion - as simple as that!

Best Regards: MBEC's Team