Claims
A claim is the main point of an argument, a statement of what the debater intends to prove. It is sometimes called a “tagline” and should be contained in the first sentence of an argument. The claim should intuitively resonate with the audience by using powerful and direct language. In the context of a debate round, a debater must use her claims to accomplish three goals:
1. Label the argument. A claim should always include some system of numbering or sequencing to help delineate major ideas. Speakers should label arguments clearly and simply: “The first reason to affirm this legislation” or “the next argument in favor of the resolution.”
2. Relate back to the purpose of the argument. In debate, debaters should make consistent references to the resolution and their advocacy (to affirm or negate the resolution) or to the legislation and their advocacy (to pass or defeat the legislation). Using the specific language of the resolution or legislation in place of the generic terms is acceptable. For example, instead of “The first reason to affirm the legislation,” a speaker may opt for the more specific “The first reason to impose sanctions on Iran.”
These two elements of strong claims, labeling and linking the claim back to the topic, serve the same purpose: helping the audience follow the argument. Without clear labels, arguments have a tendency to blend together; without linking back to the topic, arguments may fail to resonate with the judge and audience.
3. Include specific language that immediately reinforces the advocacy of the speech. The claim must immediately and intuitively establish the central premise of the argument to follow.
Here is an example of a claim that does not immediately reinforce the advocacy of the speech:
“The first reason to affirm the resolution is because of the economy.”
What's wrong with that claim? Well, imagine that the speaker is speaking about a resolution to cut taxes for the very wealthy. He may be about to argue that because the economy is doing poorly, we need to cut taxes to provide a short-term stimulus. Or, he may be about to argue that cutting taxes is the best way to ensure long-term economic stability. Or, his position could be that cutting taxes will further aggravate existing income disparities, hurting the economy in the long term. Any of these arguments could easily fit under the label “the economy,” and so the audience has no way of predicting what will follow. This claim is not specific and leaves the audience wondering what his position is.
Let’s look at the same claim made specific and immediate: “The first reason to affirm the resolution is because it will stimulate economic growth.” No audience will wonder if this is positive or negative; the audience will immediately understand that this resolution accomplishes something good and therefore should be passed.