PublicFormula

Debaters have always argued over the simple question of whether examples or generalizations are better to use in a debate round. While the answer to this simple question has been and probably will remain unclear, its implications will reach far into the Russia topic. After researching and publishing the research on this topic, it seems apparent that both sides will have to choose whether to construct their respective cases around specific examples of threats to U.S. interests or long-term, historical analysis of U.S.-Russia relations. There is no right or wrong answer to this dilemma. As a word of caution, never put all your eggs in one basket. If you rely heavily on examples in your case, have a substantial quantity of backup evidence tailored to historical analysis that arrives at an overarching conclusion. At the same time, if your case primarily contains generalizations, be prepared to provide substantive examples in the other speeches. Remember, debaters will always argue which is right, but the trick to this topic will be to not answer the question and argue from both sides of the dilemma. Make sense? Try it and see if it works for you. Good luck with Russia!