Fact

These are alternative case structures in parliamentary debate based on the idea that not all resolutions have a "call to action" mechanism or agent in them. There has been a general trend by competitors away from using these types of cases in general, except in some strategic situations. In the judging pool, you will find that there are critics who would much rather prefer a fact/value case over a policy, while other critics believe that there is no such thing as a fact or value cases and all resolutions require a plan.

The biggest consideration when deciding your case structure is what your critic would prefer, as your burden of proof may be higher with particular cases given the wrong critic in the back of the room.

Here is an example of a fact case framework, authored by Joey Mavity of APU:

Fact Framework

Obs. 1 – Theoretical Grounding

Because all arguments are theory laden, we offer the following heuristic for the round:

A. Interpretation

Because words have multiple meanings in multiple interpretive communities, we offer the following specified interpretation:

1.

2.

3.

B. Framework

Because there are many ways in which you can decide the round, and because no case is prima facie without providing a system of adjudication, we contend this round should be judged as though you were a professor of philosophy reading and adjudicating between competing précis. This entails four elements:

1. Coherence of thought

This measures how well claims cohere.

2. Rigor of argument

This measures the logical strength of argument.

3. Specificity of examples

This measures the relevance of examples to the argument they support.

4. Persuasiveness of presentation

This is the catch-all, but primarily refers to presentational elements.

Ultimately a fact round is no different than a policy round, except the impact calculus is to the four criterion above, and not to mere net-benefits.

C. Justification

We think this approach is beneficial for several reasons.

1. We allow for educational depth.

By utilizing the time available to explore one propositional question, we can then use this understanding for how we position ourselves politically once this round is over. This is also the most real-world, because before policy options are enacted, questions of fact are settled as best as possible. Thus, we represent the first stage in the policy-making process.

2. We preempt reactionary and shallow policy action

President Bush, in his invasion of Iraq, demonstrates the dangers of acting before we carefully examine facts. Too often, we debaters rush to act without first considering the relevant information. Because of the dangers involved in rash action, we model wise policy modeling.

D. Underview

Parliamentary debaters often speak of the fact / value / policy "trichotomy". This concept is flawed, though close. A better phrase is "opinion / value / policy". An opinion is not a fact, because it is not possible to prove (or disprove) an opinion. It is, however, possible to be more or less persuaded of an opinion. Our burden is to attempt to persuade you of our opinion, instantiated in our interpretation, evaluated through the mentioned heuristics, for the reasons we mention above. The negative burden is to dissuade you of that opinion.

-

Tailor to your specific resolution.