Issues of Fact and Prima Facie Case Building

Remember the Fact case:

• What has and what has not happened, what is true and what is not true, what may and what may not occur in the future.
• Fact cases tend to focus on cause and effect in natural phenomena, social events or in mechanics and science.
• Characteristic of a Good Fact Case:
  

1. Simple declarative sentence using only needed terms
2. Expressed in neutral terms encouraging debate
3. Limits the scope of the debate
4. Establishes the desired change (solvency)

• Facts are not facts until they're mutually agreed upon

• When there's confusion, controversy or conflict, we also have rhetorical demand - a reason to speak:

1. Make positive statements when possible
2. Define unclear words
3. Don't elevate your normal way of speaking by using huge words
4. Avoid complex sentences as your propositions
5. Don't color your language with persuasive adjectives or exaggerations. Just that facts, Ma'am.

Argument Tips:

• Building your argument from the ground up means posing a possible proposition and then look to the research to see if its grounded.
• You can't use it all, prioritize the pertinence of your evidence.
• Remember that fact evidence is founded in research, not bias.
• Evidence isn't always nicely packaged and easy to find.
• No single-argument cases - at least two arguments with multiple grounds for each

The First Constructive (Prima Facie) Template
Introduction - The rhetorical demand, justifies the topic and its relevancy.

Thesis Proposition - Declarative sentence, neutrally phrased, indicating direction of change from status quo.

Define key terms

Issue A: A significant Phenomenon exists.

Claim 1: North Korea is turning hostile.

Warrant 1: Evidence of missile and rocket testing. (Remember there can be more than one warrant labeled a, b, c, and so on. Tell us the reason the claim is true. Link the evidence with the claim.)

Grounds 1: Testing indicates aggressive posturing. (Grounds should be associated with with the relevant warrant. Don't list the warrants and then the grounds, integrate them: Warrant 1A with Grounds 1A, then Warrant 1B with Grounds 1B, etc.)

Claim 2: (The phenomenon is significant) NK's hostilities could be turned on South Korea.

Warrant 2: (There are commonly two warrants here: short term, long term.) Immediate harms include..., long reaching harms include...

Grounds 2: (There should be figures and stats here, research with specific examples, narratives about impacts or social issues.)

Issue B: The phenomenon's cause can be identified.

Claim 3: Kim Jong-il is the reason for this aggression.

Warrant 3: There may be multiple causes and they should have their own warrants with appropriate grounds for each, ie; W3a-G3a, W3b-G3b, etc.

Grounds 3: Evidence, testimony.

Underview or Conclusion: Summarize keys points, relate back to the thesis and show that you've made your point. Close with a statement of significance. NO VALUES, NO SOLUTION HERE. That comes in the second constructive. Draw an objective conclusion about what the facts reveal.


Remember:
Make sure your case is balanced and you're using factual evidence to support your claims.
Construct preemptive arguments to anticipate counter constructives.


The Sample Case of Farming and Irrigation Water:

-->

Introduction - The rhetorical demand, justifies the topic and its relevancy.

Thesis Proposition – Farmers are being denied irrigation water.
(Environmentalists are intervening via legislation to divert the flow of IW to sustain an endangered species.)

Issue A: A significant Phenomenon exists. (Environmentalists are intervening via legislation to divert the flow of IW to sustain an endangered species.)

Claim 1: Negating farming.

Warrant 1: ”Food grows where water flows.” (Remember there can be more than one warrant labeled a, b, c, and so on. Tell us the reason the claim is true. Link the evidence with the claim.

Grounds 1: No water, no food. (Grounds should be associated with the relevant warrant. Don't list the warrants and then the grounds, integrate them: Warrant 1A with Grounds 1A, then Warrant 1B with Grounds 1B, etc.) (Insert source/evidence here)

Claim 2: (The phenomenon is significant) Loss farming means loss of jobs..

Warrant 2: Short term: economic. Long term: foreign aid.

Grounds 2: (There should be figures and stats here, research with specific examples, narratives about impacts or social issues.) California Aqueduct (Insert evidence here)

Issue B: Legislation to divert IW is the cause.

Claim 3: Diversion to conserve endangered species.

Warrant 3: Best for the greater good. Humans v. minnows.

Grounds 3: Farming land’s best use is to feed people, not to preserve little fish. (Insert evidence here)

Underview or Conclusion: Summarize keys points, relate back to the thesis and show that you've made your point. Close with a statement of significance. NO VALUES, NO SOLUTION HERE. That comes in the second constructive. Draw an objective conclusion about what the facts reveal.