Brief organization

This article provides an overview of organization schemes for evidence briefs.

Most briefs are organized into several sections, sometimes with subsections inside them; for example, a brief might be broken into three major parts (Harms, Solvency, Disadvantages) with several subsections for different arguments in each part. Inside each subsection, individual cards are typically arranged in an ordered flow by what purpose they serve in making the argument.

Stock issues
Briefs are often organized by the four main stock issues: Topicality, Significance, Inherency, and Solvency. For example:

Significance


 * 1. Deaths declining


 * 1. Plan reduces research


 * 2. Plan hurts third-world farmers

Solvency


 * 1. No authority


 * 2. Enforcement fails

Other arguments
Many researchers find it awkward to arrange their arguments into the four conventional stock issues, and use a variety of other related categories instead. (For example, a researcher might find it confusing to classify disadvantages under "Significance", and would place them under a section called "Disadvantages" instead.) For example:

Harms


 * 1. Deaths declining

Solvency


 * 1. No authority


 * 2. Enforcement fails

Disadvantages


 * 1. Reduced research


 * 2. Third-world farmers

In some cases, very unusual categorization might be used. For example, if a Negative plans to attack a case with two distinct philosophies (each of which incorporates arguments under several different stock issues) the brief might be divided into two main sections, one for each philosophy.

Argument grouping
Many researchers prefer not to use high-level sections at all; instead, related arguments are simply grouped together. For example:

Harms: Deaths Declining

Solvency: No Authority

Solvency: Enforcement Fails

Disadvantage: Reduced Research

Disadvantage: Third-World Farmers

Organizing individual arguments
Individual arguments often contain multiple cards, which must be organized in a clear manner. Often, they are simply arranged in the order in which they would be presented in-round. For example, a disadvantage might begin with the initial link card, then list a series of internal link cards, and finally list the impacts.

However, debaters also frequently include "duplicate" or "backup" cards in their briefs. These must be included in the sections for individual arguments, without confusing readers as to how the argument is supposed to be run. In general, there are two ways to do so:

Shell and extend
Some debaters create a "shell" of the argument in one subsection, with just the cards they expect to read when they first raise the argument in-round, and then place any backup cards in an "extensions" section. This has the advantage of simplifying in-round presentation, but the disadvantage that debaters may miss alternate cards that might be more appropriate for the particular situation they are in. In addition, shell-and-extend organization does not work well for arguments that have a variety of possible links.

An example of shell-and-extend organization:

Disadvantage: Soft Power


 * Shell


 * Link: Withdrawing from New START kills relations with Russia


 * Impact: Relations key to national security


 * Extensions


 * Link


 * 49 experts say withdrawal would kill relations


 * Putin threatens "new cold war" if U.S. withdraws


 * New START is the centerpiece of U.S.-Russia relations


 * Impact


 * Relations key to environment, economy, security


 * Relations key to proliferation cooperation

Purpose sectioning
Alternatively, many debaters divide cards by the purpose they serve. For example, all link cards are placed in a single subsection, and all impact cards are placed in a single subsection. This makes it easier for debaters to pick and choose what combination of cards they want to use in a particular situation.

Generally, the cards debaters are expected to read when the first raise the argument in-round will be placed at the beginning of their respective sections. It is also common to tag them with a word like "backup" to indicate what is intended to be frontline and what is intended to be backup.

An example of purpose sectioning organization:

Disadvantage: Soft Power


 * Link


 * Withdrawing from New START kills relations with Russia


 * Backup: 49 experts say withdrawal would kill relations


 * Backup: Putin threatens "new cold war" if U.S. withdraws


 * Backup: New START is the centerpiece of U.S.-Russia relations


 * Impact


 * Relations key to national security


 * Backup: Relations key to environment, economy, security


 * Backup: Relations key to proliferation cooperation

Flat-level vs. sectioned organization
There is some disagreement over how much structural information should be conveyed by section headings, and how much should be conveyed by the card taglines and other notes. The following is an example of a brief that uses many levels of subsectioning:

DISADVANTAGES


 * Soft Power


 * Links


 * New START withdrawal


 * Poor relations with Zimbabwe


 * Impacts


 * Global nuclear war


 * Environmental damage

Many researchers argue that creating too many subsections is confusing in-round. When someone is on page 12 of a brief, and they see a random header labeled "Soft Power", it is not necessarily straightforward to figure out what argument they are in. They may have to flip back and forth to understand the structure, and the more different kinds of section header there are, the more difficulty their brain has recognizing which is which. "Flat organization" (where most information is conveyed with text, and there are only one or two kinds of section heading) is actually much simpler to use in-round, they argue. For example:

DISADVANTAGE: SOFT POWER


 * Link: New START withdrawal


 * Link: Poor relations with Zimbabwe


 * Impact: Global nuclear war


 * Impact: Environmental damage

Formatting concerns
It is common to place page breaks in briefs so that sections start on a new page, but what types of sections have a page break before them varies. Some debaters place page breaks only before major sections, while others place them before second- or even third-level subsections. A few debaters even put page breaks before every single card. Many debaters don't use page breaks at all.