Core rule: every argument proves the case statement

If each contention proves the case statement, and each subpoint proves its contention, one clean subpoint can win the round.

That makes the MG’s job simple: defend what the PMC built, extend cleanly, and avoid drops.

Contention 1 Subpoint A Subpoint B Subpoint C Contention 2 Subpoint A Subpoint B Subpoint C Contention 3 Subpoint A Subpoint B Subpoint C

That 3x3 structure means you only need to win 1 of 9 arguments to close the round.

The default structure (in order of priority)

Use this sequence unless you have a strong reason not to. It is clear, strategic, and naturally guides collapse decisions.

1) Principled philosophy contention

Start with a principled claim that, if true, ends the debate. This forces opponent time investment and gives you a clean, judge-friendly path to victory.

  • Warrant the principle (why it is ethically true).
  • Impact it (why the other team violates it).

2) “The clash” (pragmatic core)

These are the main practical reasons you wrote the case. If the judge is pragmatic, this contention is where you win.

  • Each subpoint is independently winning.
  • Make causal chains explicit.

3) “Cheats” (sneaky wins)

These are high-upside arguments (rollback, nuclear war, path dependency) that can auto-win with drops or weak answers.

  • Place them last so they’re answered last.
  • Clean extension matters here.

Why the order works

  1. Priority: Winning the principle is game over, so it goes first.
  2. Clarity: Judges see which warrants go with which impacts.
  3. Strategy: Opp spends time on C1, and cheats show up late on their flow.

When to break the rules

There are edge cases where you should adjust (e.g., heavy phil rounds or narrow actor cases), but default to this structure while you build consistency.

Default unless you have a strong reason not to.

Principle contention: what actually works

Most reliable principles

  • Libertarianism
  • Pacifism
  • Constitutional/legal violations bad
  • Radical egalitarian principles (especially with SJ caveats)
  • Duty-based claims (religious or job-related)
  • Democracy
  • Occasionally categorical imperatives

Common pitfalls

  • A “principle” that’s really just a pragmatic heuristic.
  • A personal intuition without ethical grounding.
  • Unwarranted claims that don’t logically prove the principle.

Tip: Metaethics matters — know what counts as a valid warrant.

Templates you can reuse

Simple 3x3 contention tree

Use this when you want maximum clarity and easy collapse decisions.

C1: Principle A) Warrant 1 B) Warrant 2 C) Impact C2: Clash (pragmatic core) A) Reason you win B) Independent reason you win C) Independent reason you win C3: Cheats A) Rollback/path dependency B) Catastrophic risk C) Strategic squeeze
“Don’t go to war” HIR case

This classic template is easy to adapt to most military conflicts.

C1: War violates an ethical principle C2: You will lose the war A) Subpoint 1 B) Subpoint 2 C) Subpoint 3 C3: Even if you win, the benefits aren’t worth the costs
“Cheats last” micro-template

Place this after pragmatic clash for maximum late-round leverage.

C3: Cheats A) Unique path dependency B) Rollback outweighs C) Catastrophic escalation if they win

Case Builder Checklist

Click each item as you complete it.

Quick self-check

Pick the best answer and confirm you’ve got the concept.

Detailed Guide

Want the full text? Read the original guide for more examples and context.

Open the Detailed Guide →

Next step: run cases with clean defense

Once your PMC sets up a strong 3x3, the MG should focus on defense and smart extensions. Keep the flow clean, don’t drop, and you’ll win a lot of rounds.

Practice tools for extensions →