Topic: [ This House believes that in the future, the United States of America will peacefully divide into multiple countries.]
Side: [Government]

Step 1: Define Key Terms & Frame the Debate
Define “This House” using permissible options (e.g., U.S. Federal Government, UN, state of PA, etc.). Ensure definitions align with the resolution’s phrasing (e.g., “should” = value-based, “believes” = plan-focused).
Define critical resolution terms in a simple, objective manner that subtly favors your side. Avoid overly narrow or abusive definitions to prevent topicality challenges.
Example: If the motion is “This House should prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels,” define “prioritize” as “allocating majority federal funding” and “renewable energy” as “solar, wind, and geothermal sources.”

Step 2: Generate & Refine Arguments
Brainstorm around 15 arguments (prioritize On-Case for Government; rebuttals + Off-Case for Opposition).
Attack each argument as an opponent: Identify logical gaps, weak evidence, or counterimpacts.
Filter weak arguments: Eliminate those easily countered. Keep 3–4 robust arguments and revise them to preempt rebuttals (e.g., strengthen warrants, clarify impacts).
Example Opposition Off-Case: “Transitioning too quickly destabilizes energy grids” → Preempt by citing Germany’s managed phaseout with grid stability.

Step 3: Structure Arguments (Claim-Warrant-Impact)
For each of the 3–4 refined arguments (prioritize quality over quantity):
Claim: Concise position (e.g., “Economic collapse,” “Environmental justice”).
Warrant:
Use 3 statistics (e.g., “Renewables create 3x jobs per dollar vs. fossil fuels [DOE, 2023]”).
Reference historical precedents (e.g., “France’s nuclear transition cut emissions by 50% in 20 years”).
Focus on logical reasoning (e.g., “Fossil subsidies distort markets, disincentivizing innovation”).
Impact: Quantify magnitude (e.g., “$2T in climate damages by 2050”) and use urgent phrasing (e.g., “irreversibly undermines intergenerational equity”).

Step 5: Create 1 or 2 unique arguments
Identify a specific, significant issue that is not widely discussed and create a unique argument addressing it. Ensure the argument is practical and focuses on real-world implications and solutions, avoiding overly theoretical concepts. The issue should be smaller in scope but still impactful. For example, on the topic 'This house should let kids be kids,' a unique argument could highlight the use of child soldiers, asserting that affirming the topic would support policies to free children from such roles and allow them a proper childhood. Provide a clear, persuasive argument tailored to the given topic. Use the claim warrant impact format above. 

-Run through many possible unique arguments (around 10) to find the best one. 

Step 4: Anticipate Opponent’s Strategy
Predict counterarguments (e.g., “Job losses in fossil industries” → Rebut with retraining programs).
Prepare for procedural challenges:
If Government, preempt topicality attacks by framing definitions as educationally valid.
If Opposition, draft a topicality argument (e.g., “Government’s ‘This House’ definition ignores local economic impacts”).
Generate situation branches that go around 4 responses deep. 

Step 5: Reply Speech Strategy
Summarize key clashes (e.g., “Opposition failed to address our cost-benefit analysis”).
Highlight voting issues (e.g., “Even if jobs are lost, climate impacts outweigh short-term costs”).
Avoid new arguments—repackage existing ones with impact calculus (e.g., “Prioritizing renewables prevents 10M climate-related deaths by 2100 [WHO]”).