Building Government Cases

Preliminary Steps Follow critical decision making. –Analyze the proposition. Look at all alternatives with as much knowledge as you can find. –This way, you will have a realistic knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of other alternatives. (We often assume that weaknesses in our case don’t exist. –Modify your position to avoid weaknesses and maximize strengths Identify the nature of the proposition. –Through your research and evidence, you will be required to establish adherence to your specific claims or main points.

Preliminary Steps The Government team has the burden to support the resolution The Government teams needs to define the terms of the resolution and provide the parameters for what the resolution means as a whole. –Just define the most important and abstract terms. If terms are vague, the Opposition might try to redefine the argument to their advantage to control the debate. The Government team needs to present a debatable case. Assess presumptions and burden of proof. –Your team has the burden of proof as you want to dispute the status quo. –Remember: You can expect to find the decision makers (or House) presuming that what they now regard as policy will continue to be so regarded unless and until someone undertakes the burden of proving otherwise.

Both sides need to address the basic areas of what’s ill or not working, who is to blame, what’s the cure, who is the empowered agency, and the cost of the plan. The Government team needs to address the problem before proposing a solution. Convince the audience that there is a problem or a need and then tell how your solution gives solvency. The Government team must convince the audience that this problem matters and that it’s significant. Create a sense of urgency by establishing the significance of the ill you have identified. If the audience isn’t convinced that the problem is important to them, you will have difficulty convincing them to your solution.

Blame Once the Government team has established the ill and the degree of significance, now address the stock issue of blame. Who or what is at fault? Who or what causes the problem (the ill) that has been identified? The Opposition will probably try to shift the blame for the ill to another causal factor. To prevent this, you need to address the blame by convincing your audience that the blame lies with whatever. –Illegal immigration is a good example of various blaming. Who’s to blame? The federal government? The economy? The immigrants themselves? Racists?

Inherency This refers to the necessity for you, the advocate of the plan, to show that the problem/ill results from the system as it is. Thus, the status quo is flawed and change is necessary to properly address the ill or problem. The Government must prevent the Opposition from successfully arguing that other factors are primarily responsible for the problems/ills mentioned in the debate. If the Opposition can convince the judge/audience that fixing the system will not solve the problem, the Government team has lost the stock issue of inherency. Government team must show that the ill is inherent in the present system. –Example: Illegal immigration; the Government team must show that there is something essential to the number of illegal immigrants and its relationship to U.S. citizens that create severe problems demanding our national (or state or local) attention. –Rebuttals would be that the U.S. needs illegal immigrants and that they do the work/jobs that citizens aren’t willing to do.

Inherency Barriers What are the barriers in the status quo that keep the problem from getting solved? –Attitudinal –Physical –Economic –Political

Solution or Cure This stock issue concerns the method or plan for addressing the ill. Now that the audience understands the problem and its urgency, what should be done about it? The Government teams needs to consider the degree of specificity you will offer. Organize the solution into planks:

Plank #1: Agency Who is responsible for oversight and implementation of your plan? Will it be now or existing government agencies such as the EPA, FCC, NASA, etc. Will it be on a global, national, state, local scale?

Plank #2: Mandates This explains what the agency will do. Will laws be made or repealed? Specific mandates are easier to enforce because they provide clear measures of what to do.

Plank #3: Time Frames How long will the plan take? How long before the plan can be implemented?

Plank #4: Funding Who is going to pay for the plan? How?

Plank #5: Enforcement How will the plan be enforced? Who is going to enforce it? What will the punishment be if the new plan/law is not followed?

Plank #6: Cost How will the current system be disrupted? How much time will the solution take away from other activities and programs? How much money will be taken away from other activities or programs? What are the social costs? What are the psychological costs? What are the opportunity costs? –Example: Reparation for African-Americans

Government Burdens In a Nutshell: Provide criteria/measuring stick to establish a problem/ill exists and change is needed. Prove the resolution/proposition is true. Define parameters of the argument (make sure there is clash/debatable). Talk about stock issues and inherency. –(Ill, blame, cure, agency, cost) –Inherency: barriers in the status quo that keeps from solving the problem: attitudinal, physical, economic, political.

Have a solution. Your plan should contain all major elements necessary to address the problem of the status quo and inherent barriers. Organize into planks: –Agency: who is responsible for oversight and implementation of your plan? Existing or new U.S. government agencies like the EPA, FCC, etc. –Mandates: explains what the agency will do. Will laws be made or repealed? Specific mandates are easier to enforce because they provide clear measures of what to do. –Time frames –Funding: Who’s going to pay for it? –Enforcement: How and who will enforce it?

Talk about the advantages of your solution. Talk about how it solves the problem. Remember: You, the Government Team have the burden of proof. You need to provide sufficient reasons to overcome presumption. Thus, provide a good prima facie case that temporarily suspends presumption.