Writing the Con Case
Con can win by showing the resolution causes new harms, fails to solve the problem, or that the status quo (or an alternative) is already better. You will be able to draft a Con case using at least one of these strategies.
Disadvantage Strategy
A disadvantage (DA) argues the resolution creates a new harm that outweighs its benefits — for example, arguing a minimum wage increase causes job losses even if it also raises some incomes. A strong DA needs its own claim, warrant, and impact, just like a Pro contention.
Solvency Deficit and Status Quo Defense
Con can also argue the resolution simply doesn't work as advertised (a solvency deficit) — Pro's mechanism sounds good on paper but fails in practice, often due to enforcement gaps or unintended behavioral responses. Alternatively, Con can defend that the status quo, or an existing trend already underway, is handling the problem adequately without the resolution's risks.
A debater is building a Con case against a resolution banning single-use plastics nationally.
Contention One: Economic Disruption. Claim: a nationwide ban devastates small packaging manufacturers. Warrant: cites a state-level case study where a similar ban caused a 22% closure rate among small packaging firms within two years, unable to absorb the cost of switching materials. Impact: tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost, concentrated in already economically vulnerable rural counties.
1. A 'disadvantage' (DA) in a Con case is:
Answer all 1 to check.
Con wins by proving new harms, failed solvency, or a status quo/alternative that's already working.