1 / 10

Building a Case

Building a Case. “(Persuaders) are never self-absorbed. Their gaze is directed outward, not inward. When they meet someone, their first move is to get inside that person’s skin, to see the world through their eyes.” - Robert Greene. 1. Defining a “Case”.

meris
Download Presentation

Building a Case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building a Case “(Persuaders) are never self-absorbed. Their gaze is directed outward, not inward. When they meet someone, their first move is to get inside that person’s skin, to see the world through their eyes.” - Robert Greene Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  2. 1. Defining a “Case” • A structure of proofs selected to substantiate claims on the issues of controversy for the purpose of influencing the beliefs of a particular audience • Structure of Proofs: Valid evidence  Claims Issues • Audience: Identify beliefs/values Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  3. 2. Assembling the Proofs • Develop a brief (e.g., an inventory of relevant contentions supported by the evidence) • Select the type of case • Series Case • Parallel Case Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  4. 3. Sides of a Case • Affirmative Case • Negative Case Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  5. 4. Building an Affirmative Case • Fundamental Rule – It must be prima facie • Types of questions • Definition • Fact • Value • Policy (Need, Remedy, Disadvantages) Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  6. 5. Stock Issues (Policy case) • Need – Is there a need for a fundamental change in policy? • Do serious problems actually exist? • Do such problems result in enough harm to require a policy change? • Is the present policy to blame for the alleged problem? • Is any policy, short of the proposal, inherently incapable of mitigating the alleged problems? Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  7. Stock Issues (cont’d) • Remedy: Will the proposal remedy the problem inherent in the present policy? • Can the remedy be put into effect? • Will the remedy create a workable system to replace the allegedly unworkable one? Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  8. Stock Issues (cont’d) • Remedy: Can the remedy be applied without serious disadvantages? • Can the proposal be put into effect without incurring disadvantageous results? • Do these results justify rejection of the proposal? Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  9. 6. Building the Negative Case • Decision Points • What issues should we contest? • What type of strategy should we use? • Defend Status Quo • Modify Status Quo • Develop a counter plan • What proofs should we use? Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

  10. 7. Criteria for Selecting Proofs • ROT – Use the most forceful arguments • Dimensions of Proof • Objective (logos) • Subjective (pathos) • Credibility (ethos) • Experience • Authority • Good Will Phillip G. Clampitt, Ph.D.

More Related