How To Create A Constructive
In the last post, we discussed the basics of a constructive and how to create arguments using the claim, warrant, and impact method or CWI. Now, we are going to apply it to a real round. A point of caution, every team builds their constructive speeches differently. In other words, the example covered here is not exhaustive of the different types of cases that exist in the world of Public Forum.
Our Example
For our example, we will be utilizing a round from the Tournament of Champions, which is widely regarded as the most prestigious high school tournament in the US. The topic is Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership in its Security Council.
Specifically, we will be analyzing the negative constructive speech. Before going any further, please watch the speech and take notes on the arguments that the negative team makes. Attempt to build their arguments utilizing the CWI method above.
In this speech, Saratoga runs a sole contention. Their one overarching claim is that permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is essential to preserving peace in the region. Presented as “sub-points,” they give two warrants to justify the claim. Note this organizational tactic—there are no formal organizational rules, but the goal is to make it as clear as possible for the audience (most importantly, the judge) to follow along. In their first sub-point, their 2014 evidence from David Bosco argues that removing UNSC membership would disincentivize one-on-one engagement amongst permanent members. This lack of preventative diplomacy and peacemaking, as seen during the Cold War, would spark the impact of more war and lives lost.
The second subpoint claims that the Council will collapse by affirming the resolution, which abolishes permanent membership in the UN Security Council. The reason it collapses is a two-step process. First, their 2009 evidence from Brian Cox argues that without permanent membership and by extension veto power there is no incentive to participate in the Council. This leads to the second step. Supported by authors Arden Hooper and Marie-Eve Loiselle without active involvement from the five permanent members—United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—the council would lose both funding and intelligence, making it unable to function.
The impact is global cooperation. Saratoga claimed that the UNSC is the bedrock of the global order, and without it, the world would be unable to address international problems like wars, arms control, climate change, and diseases.
Applying The Example To CWI
As we covered in the last post, every argument has a claim, warrant, and impact. Unlike last time, there is a large claim with smaller ones couched in. Saratoga’s sole contention is the main claim, that negating will preserve peace, but their reasons why the main claim is true are additional assertions with their own claim, warrant, and impact.
In this case, the main claim has two warrants with the two impacts.
However, when we look deeper, warrants 1 and 2 present unique sub-warrants and specific impacts.
So, a better way to view their sole contention would be like this.
You may be wondering why these details are so important. In every debate, the speech after constructive is the rebuttal. To be successful in poking holes in the opposing team’s arguments you need to understand the layers of their argumentation. If you don’t, you could miss an important argument and lose the round.
Adding “Uniqueness”
We have discussed the CWI structure at length, but one thing missing from it is “uniqueness.” Let’s say we are having a debate on whether to change the thermostat. One side argues to make it hotter, while the other side argues for lowering the thermostat. Unless you know the current temperature of the room, deciding the debate will be incredibly difficult. If the house is set to 50 degrees the team arguing for hotter will win while if it’s set at 90 the team advocating for a cooler house will win. That’s uniqueness.
Going back to our constructive. The uniqueness being presented by the negative is that the UN Security Council works. They argued that “although the UNSC isn’t perfect, it has succeeded at its main goal: preventing war from escalating globally.” The affirmative team would argue the opposite, that the UNSC has not been effective in the status quo. Whoever wins this portion of the debate has a major advantage. If a team defending the status quo proves that the current world is good then the judge needs a very strong reason to vote for the other side. This works vice versa, a side arguing to alter a current practice greatly benefits from proving the present situation is dangerous and therefore we need to take action.
Pulling It All Together
Now, we are going to pull it all together. Below is a transcript of the example constructive speech. It is color-coded with claims, warrants, impacts, and uniqueness.
Key Takeaways
- While there are numerous different ways to write a case, they always include claims, warrants, and impacts.
- A certain point can have multiple “sub-points” built within it.
- Uniqueness refers to establishing the current state of the world, and determining which side has the upper hand.
What's Next
Next, we will look at the anatomy and strategy behind the rebuttal speech.
.svg)