03Case Building (Traditional V/C) with Real Examples

How to pick a Value and Criterion, then write contentions that actually win.

Value (V) = goal; Criterion (C) = the test to reach that goal.

  • Common pairs: Justice → Protect Rights; Morality → Maximize Wellbeing; Legitimacy → Democratic Accountability.
  • Contention = Claim → Warrant → Impact → Evidence (CWIPE adds Preempt).

Aff Example

AFFIRMATIVE — Sample Case (abridged)

Framework
  Value: Justice — treating people as moral equals.
  Criterion: Protect basic rights — justice requires safeguarding core liberties.

Contention 1 — Due Process prevents wrongful punishment
  Tag: Strong procedure reduces wrongful convictions.
  Card: Gross & O'Brien 2020 — When courts enforce due process, error rates fall significantly.
  Warrant: Procedures like counsel and evidence rules filter unreliable testimony.
  Impact: Rights protection; human dignity.

Contention 2 — Free expression checks government abuse
  Tag: Speech rights enable oversight.
  Card: Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018 — Independent speech exposes abuses.
  Warrant: Whistleblowers and press need protection to reveal wrongdoing.
  Impact: Prevents rights violations; preserves legitimacy.

Voters
  1) Under Protect Rights, the aff uniquely safeguards due process & speech.
  2) Even under utility, rights protection prevents large-scale harm from state abuse.

Neg Example

NEGATIVE — Sample Case (abridged)

Framework
  Value: Justice — fair social cooperation.
  Criterion: Maximize overall wellbeing — policy evaluated by outcomes.

Contention 1 — Over-broad rights claims backfire
  Tag: Absolutist rights cause worse outcomes.
  Card: Sunstein 2019 — Rights without balancing undermine safety.
  Warrant: In crises, inflexible rules delay life-saving action.
  Impact: Higher mortality; social breakdown.

Contention 2 — Decision procedures reduce error
  Tag: Outcome-focused rules save more lives.
  Card: Tetlock 2016 — Probabilistic forecasting improves policy.
  Warrant: Calibrated priors + evidence aggregation → better choices.
  Impact: Protects more people in aggregate.

Voters
  1) Under wellbeing, neg prevents greater harms; magnitude + probability outweigh.
  2) Even under rights, rights are better preserved long-term when society survives crises.

When to use which V/C

  • Use Justice → Protect Rights when your offense is rights-based (speech, movement, due process).
  • Use Morality → Maximize Wellbeing when your offense is empirical and outcome-focused.
  • Against util Negs, pick rights; against rights-heavy Affs, pick wellbeing to weigh scope/probability.

Skeletons

  • 1AC: Intro → V/C → C1 (tag/card/warrant/impact) → C2 → Spikes → Voters.
  • 1NC (trad): V/C → Case turns/defense → One clean contention → Voters.