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.
Choosing Between DA and Solvency Strategies
Experienced Con teams often run one contention as a disadvantage and one as a solvency or status-quo defense, so that even if the judge fully buys Pro's harm story, Con still wins on 'it wouldn't actually get fixed' or 'the cure is worse than the disease.' This hedges against a judge who finds Pro's harm compelling but is persuaded a different mechanism is needed.
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:
2. True or False?
"Con can win by arguing the resolution's mechanism sounds good but fails to actually solve the problem."
3. Why might a Con team combine a disadvantage contention with a solvency-deficit contention?
Answer all 3 to check.
Con wins by proving new harms, failed solvency, or a status quo/alternative that's already working.