Wisconsin Forensics Daily

WFD Presents a Master Case List

After some discussion Noah Trilling and I have decided to start a master casebook for Wisconsin debate. This will function similarly to the casebook that was published for the Sheboygan North tournament, except that it will be cumulative and will include not only cites for affirmatives, but also for negative arguments. This year’s version is intended to be a sort of pilot version, with a more extensive casebook planned for next year.

For those of you who are wondering what on earth I’m talking about right now, a casebook is basically a written record of arguments teams make at tournaments. Often there is either a scouting process at the tournament itsself or teams simply send in outlines of their affirmatives and go-to negative positions before going to a tournament. Our casebook will take the latter form, and hopefully be updated before each tournament.

I will maybe try to write a longer post later with some reasons why a casebook might be desirable, but for now I will stick to the nuts and bolts of contributing to the casebook. Submissions should be in the form of outlines of arguments. An outline contains the tag, full source citation, and the first and last sentences of any evidence you read, and the full text of any analytical stuff or theory. For example, here’s what a Zizek card from an affirmative I wrote last year would look like in outline form:

Our particular demand for justice engages the existing order in the process of metaphorical condensation whereby we invoke a universal struggle via our particular demand. In other words, by demanding justice for Fred Korematsu, we engage in a larger struggle against the politics of the status quo themselves. Once this happens the struggle has already succeeded: it doesn’t matter how it is perceived once the existing order has been forced to engage us as equals.

Zizek in 2000

[Slovaj Zizek, philosopher, sociologist, former presidential candidate and Abercrombie & Fitch catalog contributor, The Ticklish Subject, pp 206-209]

The cruel reversal of the sublime into the ridiculous was…is thus effectively the end of politics proper

And here’s how some analytical framework arguments from the same affirmative would look:
1) We believe that our 1AC speech act is very important in the context of this round. It provides you with a unique oppurtunity to engage in a micropolitical struggle against dominant power structures. We therefore ask that you use your ballot to endorse our particular demand on the state.
2) We will defend the consequences of our demand. That is, if the negative is able to prove that our demand would do more harm than good, you vote negative.

All submissions can be emailed to me at embasema@cord.edu. Outlines should be in the form of word (or similar) attachments. I will attempt to send updated versions of the caselist out by Wednesday of each week there is a tournament. I will also keep an updated list of who has contributed to the casebook so that everyone knows what they get by joining.

Some other notes: nobody is expected to submit arguments to the casebook that haven’t yet been run in an actual debate. That is, if you plan to break a new advantage or an entirely new aff at a tournament, you are in no way obligated to submit it.

Also, I will keep a separate aff and neg casebook. That way, if you feel comfortable submitting your 1AC outline but don’t have the time or the will to contribute negative arguments, you can still be part of the casebook.

Feel free to leave feedback, offers of assistance, death threats, etc.
Erik Baseman
Appleton West Debate

Teams who have contributed:
Appleton West ER (aff and neg)
Appleton West DP (aff, neg pending)
Sheboygan North KM

Posted in Site News |