Writing the Pro Case
Pro must prove the resolution is a good idea on balance, usually by showing a clear problem and how the resolution's action solves it. You will be able to draft a Pro case's core structure.
Establishing the Status Quo Problem
Pro cases typically open by identifying a real, current harm — something wrong with the status quo that the resolution's action would fix or improve. This gives the judge a clear 'before' picture to contrast against the 'after' picture Pro will paint.
Solvency: Proving the Mechanism Works
It is not enough to identify a problem; Pro must also show that adopting the resolution actually solves or meaningfully reduces it, ideally citing real-world precedent (a similar policy that worked elsewhere) or expert consensus. Without solvency evidence, Con can argue the resolution is well-intentioned but ineffective.
A debater is building a Pro case on a resolution to legalize marijuana federally.
Contention One: Ending Mass Incarceration. Claim: federal legalization sharply reduces marijuana-related arrests. Warrant: cites states that legalized and saw arrest rates drop over 75% within three years (a real-world precedent). Impact: hundreds of thousands fewer Americans, disproportionately Black and Latino, saddled with criminal records that block housing and employment.
1. Why do Pro cases typically start by identifying a status quo problem?
2. What is 'solvency' in a Pro case?
Answer all 2 to check.
A strong Pro case names a real harm and proves, with evidence, that the resolution actually solves it.