Not to be confused with Alternative Justification Analysis Cases (AJACs), the “mini-case” format offers more than one justification for the resolution.
What?
Step back a second and think about what an affirmative case actually is saying. You are showing that our policy towards Russia should be changed. If you show just ONE way in which that is true, then it is a true statement that our policy towards Russia should be changed (even if there are 100 other ways we shouldn’t change). So the relationship of a 1AC to the resolution is to “justify” the resolution. A mini-case case structure provides multiple justifications for the resolution.
Why you would do it (besides the “hmm interesting strategy” part):
- Put your eggs in multiple baskets, defending the resolution in more than one way.
- You want to argue theory more than that content of the round
- You aren’t happy with any “big idea” cases that require a bunch of time to develop
- You need a diversion from your “main” case
Most people do not recommend the mini-cases strategy, including myself. But it’s an option that I NEVER see utilized anymore and may be worth trying, if even for the experience. It CAN work.
My novice year we had three cases (repeal agriculture subsidies, legalize hemp, and something about IPRs in farming). We also had as versions of our case each of the combos (IPR + hemp, subsidies + hemp, subsidies + IPR, and all three combined). We would make our selection based on who we were hitting and our judge. While we were not great speakers at that time, we got the “theory” part behind mini-cases and threw many experienced teams for a loop. We had winning records at all of our tournaments (usually breaking as the lowest-speaks 4-2 or 5-1 team, haha).
How it works: Organize your case with definitions/resolutional analysis like normal, then quickly explain that you need to justify the resolution in just ONE way and will offer two or three justifications but only plan to win on one. This argument is key for the strategy to work and you need to force the other team to acknowledge and argue about the theory here.
The rest of your 1AC should look something like this:
Harm
Plan
Advantage
Harm 2
Plan 2
Advantage 2
Mixing it Up: Some people will play with case formats. Our subsidies case was goals-criterion format, our hemp case plan-meet-need, and our IPR case was comparative advantage (I think). You might have a mini-case structure like this:
I. Intro
II. Resolutional Analysis
III. Mini-cases explanation
IV: (Case 1)
Plan
Advantage
V: Plan 2
Advantage 2
VI: Plan 3
Advantage 3
VII. Conclusion
Dangers of Mini-Cases
- Not every judge understands the relationship of 1ACs to the resolution and winning the round
- Using this against very novice teams will look “mean” and needs to not be used as such
- If you really focus on the theory, it can turn some people off
- Some really good debaters will argue “No, AFF teams must sustain all their argumentation — that’s why it is called debate!” and make you defend ALL your cases
So how do you answer mini-cases? Subject for another post some time, but take a stab in the comments if you wish.
The only problem with this structure that comes to mind inititally is the word “resolved” in the resolution. The case could be made that if you’re running multiple plans in the round and saying you “only need to prove the validity of one plan in order to win” then you aren’t really sure about each individual plan.
You may be able to say “I’m resolved that the USFG should sig ref its policy toward Russia — in some way….”, but the reality is that you technically aren’t really sure of which way. If you come into the round with the intent of dropping part of your original proposal to affirm the resolution, the case could be made that you aren’t (1) resolved about your position, or (2) even resolved about this resolution (since any or all of your “plans” could be dropped).
Keep in mind that this is just a thought. It also relies on whether or not you were referring to running multiple cases with the intent of dropping one in-round (which I assume is the whole strategy).
I’m open to other thoughts on this 🙂
But if, despite having lost one of the cases, at the end of the round you still have proven the necessity of the resolution’s policy change, then are you not still resolved to sig ref policy towards Russia?
It seems to me that this mini-case approach is not like alternative justification cases where you try to get the judge to buy either/or. You are resolved that each mini-case does in fact justify the resolution. So you are running a both/and case. If the judge only goes for 1 of the cases, it should still be enough to justify the resolution. But you aren’t discarding a case. You hope they vote on all your minis.
I think it makes sense in resolutions that are so broad that you need broad justification. Immigration year would be an example. It might require both strengthening the border, giving legal status to those here under certain conditions, and raising quotas to really effect immigration. So you could run 3 minis as an option to putting 3 very different ideas as mandates of one case, knowing that if the judge votes for 1 case, it is still a case that justifies changing our immigration policy.
I think the problem that you see here is what happens if the judge in your first round doesn’t buy raising quotas or legal status but buys the strengthening plan (based upon the negs args). In the second round, the negs args means the judge buys legal status, but not the other planks. In effect, it allows the 2AR to focus on the plan that is winning and drop the losing plans. Either the case is a plan/argument as a whole or it isn’t. I would have serious problems with casting a vote for an affirmative whose “plan” was dropped in all but one point. It is a tricky plan style. If you took the same case and set it out as plan meets needs, you wouldn’t feel the same about voting for the plan when the neg proved at least 2 mandates had issues.