What to research

There are, in essence, two specifics in terms of the actual doing of the research. The first, and more important, is what to research, and the second, and more flexible, is how to research. Let’s add to this the different needs of LD and PF, and try to keep it all straight and meaningful.

The first thing that is necessary regarding any resolution is understanding the context of that resolution. No topic exists in a vacuum. There is a history surrounding every topic, and often a precipitating event that has inspired the topic in the first place. For instance, a growing sense that the US might invade Iran (prior to learning that they were not involved in developing a nuclear weapons program) can obviously be seen as the direct antecedent to the recent PF ”the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran” topic, and the LD “It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.” As a general rule, the PF resolutions are pretty specific, and it’s easy to see what is being referenced. LD topics might be a little more general; at least at the moment, this is a function of how and when the topics are chosen by the NFL. I would imagine that this would remain true going forward. Let’s start with a proposal for a PF plan for research.

To debate a resolution, you need to understand the history of that resolution, i.e., the history to which the resolution refers. There is an inherent story behind any resolution, a history, a series of events that have led us to where we are today, which is presumably a point of having to determine how to go forward. Debating—presenting a position explaining how to go forward—requires an understanding of that history, of where we have been and how it has brought us to where we are, and often requires a presentation of that history. This is less germane to LD than to PF, which often requires some storytelling to set the stage. In the rez about military options against Iran, we explain that the history of US/Iran is this, and this is where we are now, and if we pursue military options, this will be the result. Other PF resolutions seem comparable, as a general rule. Where we’ve been and why it’s gotten us to this point, the niceties of this point, and why a specific choice or situation is good or bad.

So what to research in this PF context is fairly straightforward. First, you need to research the history of the subject, because in your story/case, you are going to explain how that history is relevant, having brought us to this point. In the topic “That Russia has become a threat to U.S. interests,” that history and this point are the end of it, because there is no request for action. In the “use of military options against Iran” type topic, you must then add material on the what-if side. But in both cases you start with the history. And you can take this to the bank: if one team sounds as if they really know the relevant history on a subject, and the other team sounds as if they really do not know the relevant history on a subject, the team that knows its stuff will win every single time, period, end of story. If you’re talking about Iran, maybe you need to know the series of events from Shah to Ayatollah to Ahmadinejad. If someone mentions the embassy hostage crisis, which may or may not be irrelevant, you can’t reply by asking “Say what?”

In other words, step one, research the background/history of the resolution.

The next part of your case is the explanation of the present situation, i.e. the context of the topic. There is probably going to be a specific issue here. And it’s probably going to tie into your recommended plan of action, if the resolution is asking for one. In the Iran rez, you would need to know what, exactly, is happening now between the US and Iran. In the Russia topic, you would need to know what, exactly, is happening in Russia now that might threaten US interests. Here you’re going to look into the latest events relevant to the area you’re researching, something as clear as “Iran nuclear threat” or “Iran threat to US” or something like that, or in the Russia topic, you’re going to focus in on areas where you think the threat might be, like economics or military or whatever, and look up “Russia economic expansion” or “Russia military threat,” or whatever other angles you think might be promising.

Step two, therefore, is context, researching the specifics of the resolution at present. If the resolution offers wording to narrow the research, so much the better, but don’t count on it. Try different areas; you’ll pursue the one that yields the best results.

The final part of your case is making it convincing. Why do I believe you, aside from the fact that you’ve got a lot of facts at your fingertips? Here I think you need to go beyond those facts to comparable situations, and show why the action or analysis you’re proposing is the correct action/analysis, by showing how other situations have been similar. When and where has the US, or any other country, taken military action in a similar situation to that present day Iran/US situation? How has that worked out? Obviously Iraq is a perfect model of comparison, but perhaps other historical examples have worked out better. Whichever. Proposing your case’s conclusion in the light of comparable situations is yet another level of knowledge that will make your position all that much more convincing, and make you sound all that much more knowledgeable. Similarly, you might find experts who agree with your proposal/analysis, backing you up with their authority.

Step three, therefore, is to research comparable situations to support your conclusion.

LD, which is looking for a transcendent justification for action rather than at a specific situation, requires a different approach, which I’ll get to next.