Case

The word case describes the fundamental tenets of a team's position, especially as they are presented in the team's first speech of the round.

Team Policy cases
In Team Policy debate, the Affirmative team's case generally consists of a plan and their justifications for endorsing it. The Negative team does not generally present a case.

Parts of a case
Cases generally try to cover all of the stock issues in some manner. The following elements are typical, in some configuration:


 * Definitions: Definitions of key terms that may become important, like the word "significantly" or any confusing acronyms.
 * The plan: A proposed set of actions to carry out.
 * Harms: Explanation of problems that exist in the status quo (significance).
 * Inherency: Broadly, discussion of why the status quo isn't solving the problem by itself.
 * Solvency: Arguments showing the plan will solve the problem.
 * Advantages - advantages that passing the plan will gain.

Plan-meets-needs
Plan-meets-needs is probably the most popular case structure. The case focuses on a specific set of problems and how the plan solves them. For example:


 * 1. Definitions


 * 2. Inherency


 * 3. Harms


 * 4. Plan


 * 5. Solvency


 * 6. Advantages

Comparative advantage
Strictly speaking, comparative advantage is a criterion for evaluating the case, not a structure. Many cases that use the criterion of comparative advantage also use this structure, however. Comparative advantage-structured cases do not include harms; instead, they list only advantages, without necessarily claiming that the status quo is bad. Inherency and solvency are generally included implicitly in the advantages section. For example:


 * 1. Definitions


 * 2. Plan


 * 3. Advantages

Justifications
Justification-structured cases combine harms, inherency, solvency, and advantages into a series of "justifications" for the plan. They are mainly used when each advantage addresses a different harm or requires different solvency/inherency arguments. For example:


 * 1. Definitions


 * 2. Plan


 * 3. Justification 1: Prevents human rights abuses


 * 4. Justification 2: Increases international stability


 * 5. Justification 3: Helps the economy

Mini-cases and AJACs
Mini-cases and AJACs are meta-structures in which the Affirmative team presents multiple different cases in the same speech. The individual cases may follow any of the above structures.

When running mini-cases, the Affirmative endorses all of the cases they present; in practice, this is like running one big case with several very different mandates. When running an AJAC, the Affirmative does not necessarily endorse all the cases they present - and they may even contradict. The judge is asked to vote for the Affirmative if he or she is convinced by at least one of the cases presented - even if all the others are proven to be a bad idea.

Lincoln-Douglas cases
In Lincoln Douglas debate, both teams generally present cases, which consist of the main logical points they intend to base their arguments around for the rest of the round.