ORGANIZATION---A REALLY NIFTY IDEA!!

Excellent ideas can be sabotaged by poor organization. Likewise, average ideas can be enhanced and successful if properly organized. I’m not the most organized person myself, ask anyone who has seen my room, but when it comes to debate I try to be. That’s what this is all about. You don’t need to be Mr. Clean himself, but you don’t need to run a landfill on your desk to show that the environment needs help either.

One of the most important goals a debater has is to be able to present material in a way that makes logical sense, relates ideas to each other in meaningful ways, and allows the judge to connect your responses to the arguments they are answering. Unless your ideas work together well and unless the judge writes your answers to the opposition's arguments down next to the arguments they apply to, victory will be difficult.

LEARN TO BUILD AN OUTLINE

When you build arguments and advocacy positions in a debate it is important to remember basic outlining techniques.

MAJOR POINTS: Divide your ideas up under major headings. These major headings might represent major argumentative burdens such as stock issues. Make sure that the major points are distinct from one another. If an idea is unavoidable and vital in coming to the conclusion you want, it should be included as a major point. Put major points in the proper chronological order: causes before effects, background before conclusions, etc. The statement of the major point should be something which all of the points arrayed under it are relevant to.

SUBORDINATION: Within each major point you can array all of the specific points which support the major idea. Some of these will naturally group together into further subgroups. This sorting of ideas is critical to debate success and to becoming a critical thinker. Ideas can be sorted by: distinct idea or concept, general or specific nature, different steps in a logical process, etc.

NOTATION: Outlines (and debate arguments) have letter and number alternations so that one level of substructure can be differentiated from another. Major points are often expressed with roman numerals (I, II, III, IV, etc.), subtopics of major points are letters (A, B, C, D, etc.), and particulars about subtopics are numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). It takes two particular ideas to begin a subdivision of any point, or else the single subdivision would be the more general point. You need a B to justify an A, and a 2 to justify a 1.

I. Major point that you are making

A. Subtopic in support of I.

B. Another subtopic in support of I.

1. Specific point about B.

2. Another specific point about B.

II. Another major point you are making.

A. Subtopic in support of II.

B. Another subtopic in support of II.

(remember your indention, I didn't take the time to put it in)

STRUCTURE BEYOND THE OUTLINE

In critiquing arguments by others, or in applying certain issues to positions taken by the other team, it is essential to organize smaller groups of arguments. For example, if the affirmative case has stated that X is harmful, the negative will need to organize responses to this concept. Here are two distinct ways to organize such response.

LIST OF REASONS -- USE NUMBERS: Often debaters will provide a list of independent reasons why something is or is not true. If the affirmative claims that X is harmful, the negative could come up with 1, 2, 3, and 4 independent arguments why this is not true. Each of these would be a separate idea, not a repeat of a previous idea. Thus, opponents would have to answer each of these separately. Don’t worry if you can’t do this yet, it takes a while before you know your case well enough, but somewhere along the line someone will make a stupid argument, and when you have several arguments, remember to structure it.

CHAIN OF REASONING - USE LETTERS: Often arguments are more complex than one idea, and involve several steps. These can be thought of as chains of reasoning. Thus, a debater would say that A is true, and B is true, and therefore this leads to conclusion C. Like any chain, it is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus, opponents would only have to break the chain at one point.

WHY DO THIS: It is very important to be able to tell the difference between a situation where arguments in a list are independent and where there is a chain of reasoning. If you organize arguments this way you will always be able to tell the difference easily. Not to mention the judge will be able to tell the difference. You will probably hit teams who think that if they can confuse you, they got you. This isn’t true, because if you can’t follow them, then chances are the judge can’t either. Remember, you may be new at this (or your varsity and bored so you thought you’d read this) but if you have a lay judge you already know more than them. Furthermore, us varsity judges really hate to watch you guys do that.

GOOD LUCK!!