From fc8a7e1f653f25de53a6042da84ce19749939def Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 15:24:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Give five guide pages their own content and one brand config Google crawled /ai-debate-practice, /ai-debate-coach, /ai-debate-case-generator, /best-ai-debate-tools and /debate-rebuttal-practice but did not index them. Each had about 2,000 characters of visible text, and every feature card repeated the same sentence, three times per page across all 49 guides. - The shared template no longer prints that sentence. Cards can carry a page-specific description; pages without one show the title only. - The five pages get long-form copy in scripts/seo_guides.py: step-by-step how-tos, a worked example, WSDC/BP/PF/LD tips and their own FAQs. The FAQ list feeds both the visible FAQ and the FAQPage JSON-LD. - src/config/site.json now holds the origin, product, brand and organization names. The generator, pages.ts, the prerender entry, prerender.mjs and sitemap.mjs read it, and guide copy uses {product}. - CONTENT_DATE moves to 2026-10-18 because every guide's text changed. Titles, canonicals, the Article and Breadcrumb JSON-LD and the related guide links are unchanged on all five pages. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- docs/operations.md | 4 + public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html | 8 +- public/ai-debate-coach/index.html | 8 +- public/ai-debate-evidence-research/index.html | 4 +- public/ai-debate-practice/index.html | 8 +- public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html | 4 +- .../ai-tools-for-debate-students/index.html | 4 +- .../ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep/index.html | 4 +- public/argument-flowchart/index.html | 4 +- public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html | 8 +- .../british-parliamentary-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/congress-debate/index.html | 4 +- .../debate-argument-flowchart-tool/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-block-file-guide/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-case-generator/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-clash-points/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-collapsing-strategy/index.html | 4 +- .../debate-cross-examination-tips/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html | 4 +- .../debate-evidence-verification/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-fallacies/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-impact-calculus/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-note-taking-flowing/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-prep-time-management/index.html | 4 +- .../index.html | 4 +- public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html | 8 +- public/debate-speech-structure/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-weighing-guide/index.html | 4 +- public/debatelab-alternatives/index.html | 4 +- public/debatelab-pricing/index.html | 4 +- public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html | 4 +- public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html | 4 +- public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html | 4 +- .../how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html | 4 +- .../index.html | 4 +- public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html | 4 +- .../how-to-write-a-rebuttal-speech/index.html | 4 +- public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/online-debate-timer-tool/index.html | 4 +- public/online-debate-timer/index.html | 4 +- public/policy-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/public-forum-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/world-schools-debate/index.html | 4 +- public/wsdc-debate-practice/index.html | 4 +- scripts/generate_seo_content.py | 85 +++- scripts/prerender.mjs | 2 +- scripts/seo_guides.py | 367 ++++++++++++++++++ scripts/sitemap.mjs | 2 +- src/config/site.json | 6 + src/lib/seo/pages.ts | 25 +- src/prerender/entry.tsx | 6 +- 57 files changed, 570 insertions(+), 143 deletions(-) create mode 100644 scripts/seo_guides.py create mode 100644 src/config/site.json diff --git a/docs/operations.md b/docs/operations.md index cb3dbbca0..bb697babd 100644 --- a/docs/operations.md +++ b/docs/operations.md @@ -52,6 +52,10 @@ After `vite build`, [`scripts/prerender.mjs`](../scripts/prerender.mjs) renders [`scripts/sitemap.mjs`](../scripts/sitemap.mjs) then writes `dist/sitemap.xml` from every page in `dist/` that names itself as canonical and is not `noindex`. Each `` is the `dateModified` the page declares in its JSON-LD: the guide pages' `CONTENT_DATE` in [`scripts/generate_seo_content.py`](../scripts/generate_seo_content.py), the legal pages' "last updated" dates, and the landing page's last source commit. A page without a date is listed without ``. +The guide pages in `public//index.html` are generated, not hand-edited: run `python3 scripts/generate_seo_content.py` and commit its output. Short pages live in its `PAGES` list; pages with long-form copy, their own highlight-card descriptions, and their own FAQs (which also feed the page's FAQPage JSON-LD) live in [`scripts/seo_guides.py`](../scripts/seo_guides.py). Keep `PAGES` in order, because each page's related-guide links are picked by position. + +The site origin, product name, brand line, and organization name live in [`src/config/site.json`](../src/config/site.json). The app's head tags, the prerender and sitemap scripts, and the guide generator all read it, and guide copy names the product with a `{product}` token. Do not hardcode those strings in new code or copy. + [`src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts`](../src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts) guards these rules. Update it together with `vercel.json`, and do not paste the full configuration into another guide. A Vercel deploy ships only the frontend. Supabase migrations and Edge Functions are separate operations with their own authorization, so a frontend that depends on new schema must wait until that schema is applied to production. diff --git a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html index 7ab8c729b..01638f9f5 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html @@ -15,15 +15,15 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI Debate Case Generator with Citations
Tool guide

AI Debate Case Generator with Citations

Draft faster, verify carefully, and walk into the round with a structured case.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Structured case drafts

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Evidence leads

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Format templates

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

-

What an AI case generator should do

A good case generator does not write your case for you. It gives you structure: claims, warrants, impacts, and research leads that you verify and adapt.

Citation and evidence workflows

Generated evidence leads are starting points, not final cards. Always check the original source, confirm the quote, and make sure the evidence supports your link.

How DebateLab's case generator works

DebateLab generates structured draft cases that you can attack, refine, and prepare. The private workspace holds your saved cases and history.

+

Structured case drafts

Each draft has a thesis, a framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it.

Evidence leads

Turn on web research to get sources alongside the draft, then check each one against the original before it goes on a card.

Format templates

Set the format and your role so the draft fits British Parliamentary, Policy, a classroom debate or a custom structure.

+

What the case generator produces

Generate takes the motion from your Current Debate and returns a structured case, not a block of prose. Every draft has the same parts, so you always know where to look:

  • Thesis: the one-sentence reason your side should win.
  • Framework: how the judge should decide the round, such as the definition, the burden or the weighing standard you will argue for.
  • Contentions: each with a claim, the warrant that makes it true, and the impact that makes it matter.
  • Predicted opponent case: the arguments a strong team on the other side is likely to run.
  • Counters: first responses to that predicted case.

Because the opponent case is part of the draft, you start preparing rebuttals at the same time as your own case. When one section is weak, regenerate just that section; the rest of the case stays where it is. Finished cases export to PDF or DOCX.

From motion to verified case in seven steps

  1. Start a Current Debate with the exact motion wording. Small wording changes, such as should against would, change the burden.
  2. Add the sources you already trust to the Library. Active sources are used when the case is generated, so the draft builds on your research instead of ignoring it.
  3. Set the format and your role, and add instructions if you need a particular angle, for example a principled argument or an economic one.
  4. Turn on web research if you want evidence leads, and generate the case.
  5. Read the predicted opponent case first and decide which of your contentions actually answers it. Cut contentions that do not clash with anything.
  6. Regenerate any section that is vague, then verify every evidence lead against its original source.
  7. Rewrite the final case in your own words and time a full reading of it before you call it ready.

Worked example: a generated case, and what the debater changed

Motion: This house would introduce a four-day school week

Side: Proposition.

Thesis: A shorter week concentrates instruction where it works and gives schools a recruitment advantage they cannot buy with pay.

Framework: The round should be decided by learning outcomes for students across the school, not by the convenience of any single group.

Contention 1: Teacher retention. Claim: a four-day week keeps experienced teachers. Warrant: schools competing for staff cannot always raise salaries, but they can offer time. Impact: experienced teachers are among the strongest in-school drivers of student learning.

Predicted opposition: Childcare costs for working parents on the fifth day, and lost instruction time for students who are already behind.

Counter: Schools can run an optional fifth-day programme for families who need it, and longer remaining days protect total instruction hours.

Evidence lead to verify: Research on districts that moved to four-day weeks, looking at attendance, teacher turnover and test results. Read the methodology: results differ between rural and urban districts.

What the debater changed: Cut a weaker cost-saving contention the opposition would easily mitigate, and moved the instruction-hours counter into the first speech so it was on the table before the opposition raised it.

The draft gave the debater a full structure in minutes. The judgement calls, which contention to cut and where to pre-empt the opposition, were still theirs, and that is where the round was won.

Checking citations before they reach a card

Generated evidence is a starting point. Before any source goes into a speech:

  • Open the original. If you cannot find it, do not use it.
  • Find the exact sentence that supports your claim, and check that the surrounding paragraph does not qualify it.
  • Check the date, the author and who published it. A think-tank brief and a peer-reviewed study carry different weight.
  • Make sure the evidence supports your link, not just your topic. A study showing four-day weeks save money does not prove they improve learning.
  • Record the full citation so you can produce it if an opponent or judge asks.

Factoids is useful here: give it a single statement from your case and it researches that statement and suggests searches you can use to confirm it.

Adapting a generated case to your format

World Schools (WSDC)

A WSDC case is split between the first and second speakers, with a team line both can repeat. Use the thesis as the team line, give the first speaker the framework and the first contention, and keep the strongest contention for the second speaker so the case builds rather than front-loads. Generate with the custom format and say this in the instructions.

British Parliamentary (BP)

Set the format to British Parliamentary and choose your role. Opening government needs a clear definition and mechanism in the draft. Closing teams should treat the generated case as material the opening half will probably use, and look in the predicted opponent case for an extension nobody else in the room is likely to run.

Public Forum (PF)

A PF constructive is four minutes, which usually means two contentions with evidence, not four. Since PF teams often find out their side shortly before the round, generate both sides of the resolution in the same debate and prepare the counters for each.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

In LD, the framework section becomes your value and criterion. Check that every contention explicitly links back to the criterion; if one does not, regenerate it with an instruction to tie it to the standard you chose. Prepare a short defence of the criterion itself, because the negative will often attack it first.

Mistakes to avoid with generated cases

  • Reading the draft in round. Judges hear the difference between a case you wrote and one you are reading for the first time.
  • Keeping every contention. Three well-defended points beat five thin ones.
  • Skipping the predicted opponent case. It is the fastest route to your rebuttals.
  • Citing an evidence lead you never opened.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Argument Flowchart Tool for Debate Prep Online Debate Timer for Practice Rounds How to Write a Debate Case Guide
-

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?

Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?

No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context.

Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?

Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round.

+

Frequently asked questions

Does the case generator write a complete case?

It writes a complete draft: thesis, framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the likely opposing case and counters. Treat it as a structure to cut, verify and rewrite in your own words.

Are the generated citations reliable?

They are research leads. With web research on, the draft includes sources, but you should open every one, confirm the exact claim and record the full citation before using it.

Which debate formats does the generator support?

You can set the format to British Parliamentary, Policy, Classroom or Custom and choose your role. For WSDC, Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas, use Custom and describe the structure in the instructions.

Can I change one part of a case without starting over?

Yes. Regenerate a single section and the rest of the case stays on screen unchanged.

Can I export a generated case?

Yes. Cases export to PDF and DOCX, and cases created in a Current Debate are saved to it automatically.

diff --git a/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html b/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html index 608c2a975..b6971bd3f 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html @@ -15,15 +15,15 @@ - +
DebateLab / Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep
Feature guide

Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep

Get focused help with strategy, structure, weighing, rebuttals, speeches, and practice feedback.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Strategy help

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Speech structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Practice feedback

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

-

What an AI debate coach should do

The useful coach asks what the round is about, what side you are on, what your burden is, and what the judge needs to compare.

DebateLab supports strategy, structure, weighing, rebuttals, and speech practice rather than generic essay writing.

Use coaching to improve faster

After a practice speech, ask what was unclear, what was under-warranted, and what should become the collapse. Then repeat with a narrower drill.

Public guidance, private workspace

Coaching explanations can be public and indexable. Your saved cases, history, and private prep remain protected behind login.

+

Strategy help

Ask which clash decides the round, what your burden is and where to spend your speaking time, with answers that use your debate's motion and sources.

Speech structure

Get an outline for a constructive, rebuttal, summary or reply speech: the order of points and how long to give each one.

Practice feedback

Paste a speech or a flow and ask what was unclear, under-warranted or dropped, then pick one fix to drill.

+

What an AI debate coach is for

A good human coach rarely gives you an answer first. They ask what the round is about, which side you are on, what you have to prove, and what the judge will be comparing at the end. The AI coach in DebateLab works best the same way: as a partner you think out loud with, not a machine that writes speeches.

Ask is a coaching chat that streams its answer as it writes, and it already knows your Current Debate: the motion and the Library sources you have marked active. That context is the main difference from a general chatbot. You do not have to paste the motion and your research into every question, and the advice stays tied to one debate instead of drifting between topics.

How to ask a coaching question that gets a useful answer

Vague questions get generic answers. Compare these two:

  • Weak: How do I win this debate?
  • Strong: I am second opposition in a WSDC round on this motion. Our first speaker argued the policy is unworkable. What should I add so I am not repeating her, and which proposition argument should I spend most of my rebuttal on?

The strong version names the format, the speaker role, what has already been said and the decision you actually have to make. A reliable template is: format, side and speaker, what is already on the table, what you are stuck on, and what kind of answer you want (a list, an outline or a single recommendation).

Five coaching conversations worth having before a tournament

  1. Burden check: ask what each side has to prove for the motion to stand or fall, and where the line between them sits. Many rounds are lost on a burden nobody named.
  2. Clash map: ask for the three places where the cases will meet. Plan your speeches around those, not around your own contentions.
  3. Weighing rehearsal: give the coach your impact and the likely opposing impact and ask for the comparison in two sentences. Repeat until you can say it without notes.
  4. Speech audit: paste a practice speech and ask which claim had no warrant, which point ran too long, and what a judge would remember from it.
  5. Opponent prediction: ask how a strong team on the other side would frame the debate, then ask what your first response to that framing should be.

Worked example: coaching a weak rebuttal

Motion: This house believes social media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms

Student's rebuttal: Their argument is wrong because free speech is important and this would destroy it.

Coach's diagnosis: The response asserts a value but never connects it to the proposition's mechanism. It does not say how liability leads to less speech, so the judge has nothing to weigh.

Coach's question back: What would a platform rationally do if it could be sued for every false post?

Rebuilt rebuttal: Liability makes every borderline post a legal risk. A platform facing that risk removes anything it cannot verify quickly, which includes breaking news, whistleblowers and minority viewpoints. So the proposition does not just remove misinformation; it removes true speech that is hard to check, and the people who lose most are those with no other platform.

Follow-up drill: Deliver the rebuilt response in forty-five seconds, then ask the coach for the strongest proposition answer to it and prepare a single-sentence reply.

Notice that the coach did not write the rebuttal outright. It asked the question that exposed the missing link, which is the habit you want to build for rounds where no coach is available.

Coaching by format

World Schools (WSDC)

Ask the coach to check your team split: what the first and second speakers each own, and whether the third speaker can rebut without introducing a new argument. For the reply speech, ask for a structure built around the two or three questions the debate turned on, told from your side, without new material.

British Parliamentary (BP)

Role fulfilment decides BP rooms. Ask the coach whether your member speech is a true extension or a restatement of your opening bench, and ask what a whip speech should do with the five other speeches already in the room: group them into clashes, not summaries of each speaker.

Public Forum (PF)

Use coaching to plan the summary before the round. Ask which two issues you can realistically extend from constructive through final focus, and what the second rebuttal must frontline so those issues survive. Also ask for crossfire questions that set up your summary rather than score points.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

LD coaching is often framework coaching. Ask the coach whether your criterion actually measures your value, how your contentions link back to the criterion, and when it is safer to concede the opponent's framework and show that you win under it anyway.

Getting answers with sources

When a coaching answer depends on facts, turn on citation mode in Ask. The coach then answers with sources you can open. Treat those as leads: read the original, confirm it says what the answer claims, and only then use it in a speech. Adding your own trusted articles to the Library has the same effect from the other direction, because active sources are included in every answer for that debate.

What an AI coach cannot do

It has not watched you speak, it does not know the judges at your tournament, and it cannot tell you how your partner works under pressure. Bring the conclusions from AI coaching sessions to your human coach or team, and let them correct the advice that does not fit the people in the room.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students WSDC Debate Practice With AI Drills @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Policy Debate Prep with AI British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI Congressional Debate Prep with AI
-

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?

Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?

No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context.

Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?

Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round.

+

Frequently asked questions

What can I ask the AI debate coach?

Anything you would ask a coach between rounds: burdens, clash, weighing, speech structure, how to answer a specific argument, or why a practice speech did not land. Specific questions with format, side and speaker role get the best answers.

Does the coach know my case?

It knows your Current Debate: the motion, and the Library sources you have marked active. Paste a speech or a case section into the question when you want feedback on that exact text.

Can the AI coach cite sources?

Yes. Turn on citation mode in Ask and the answer includes sources you can open. Check each one against the original before using it in a round.

Will the coach write my speeches for me?

It can draft an outline or a passage, but you will speak better from structure you understand. Use it to find what is missing, then write the speech in your own words.

How is this different from a general AI chatbot?

The coach works inside one debate at a time, so it keeps your motion, side and sources in context, and it is set up for debate questions rather than essays.

diff --git a/public/ai-debate-evidence-research/index.html b/public/ai-debate-evidence-research/index.html index 50f637dde..3e335a235 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-evidence-research/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-evidence-research/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI Debate Evidence Research Tool
Tool guide

AI Debate Evidence Research Tool

Use AI for research directions, not as a replacement for reading sources.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Source suggestions

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Citation direction

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Impact linking

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Source suggestions

Citation direction

Impact linking

AI research is a starting point

AI can suggest where to look: which journals, news sources, and reports might support your link. But you must open and verify the actual source.

How to verify evidence

Check author credentials, publication date, methodology, and whether the quote is in context. A card that misrepresents the source will hurt you in cross-ex.

Linking evidence to arguments

Evidence is not self-explanatory. You must explain how it supports your warrant and impact. DebateLab helps connect research to clash.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html index 4746e1bf6..9e1804146 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html @@ -15,15 +15,15 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI Debate Practice for Stronger Cases, Rebuttals, and Speeches
DebateLab guide

AI Debate Practice for Stronger Cases, Rebuttals, and Speeches

Use a focused debate workspace for cases, rebuttals, sources, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Practice against AI opponents

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Turn feedback into drills

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Keep private prep out of search

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

-

Why AI debate practice needs structure

Good practice is not just asking a chatbot for arguments. Debaters need claims, warrants, impacts, weighing, evidence, and responses that fit their format.

DebateLab connects the workflow: generate a case, attack it, gather sources, map clash, ask for coaching, and practice before the round starts.

What to practice before a round

Start by writing the motion in plain language. Identify each side's burdens, likely clashes, and the judge questions that decide the round.

Use AI debate practice to stress-test the weakest link: a missing warrant, overclaimed impact, weak comparative, or rebuttal that answers the wrong issue.

How DebateLab helps

Public guides explain the product clearly while saved cases, history, and private dashboards stay protected behind login.

+

Practice against AI opponents

Run a full Sparring round in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum, type or speak each speech, and finish with a judged verdict.

Turn feedback into drills

Take the weakest point from a verdict or a Crossfire debrief, rebuild it with Attack or Ask, and run that speech again.

Keep private prep out of search

Cases, sources, rounds and history stay inside your Current Debate behind sign-in. Only these public guides are indexed.

+

What a useful AI practice session looks like

Most debaters improve through repetitions with feedback: give a speech, find out what failed, fix one thing, give it again. AI practice is valuable when it shortens that loop, not when it hands you a finished speech to read.

A chat window can produce arguments on request, but it does not hold a round together. It forgets which side you are on, does not time you, and rarely tells you which of your points the judge would have dropped. Practice needs a motion, a side, a format with real speech times, an opponent that responds to what you actually said, and a verdict that names the reason you lost or won.

DebateLab is built around that loop. You start a Current Debate for one motion, and every case, source, round and debrief you create stays filed under it. That means the AI opponent in your third practice round can see the same Library sources you used to write your case, and your History shows how the debate developed across sessions.

A 45-minute practice session, step by step

This plan fits a weeknight. It assumes you have a motion but no case yet.

  1. Start a Current Debate with the motion written exactly as it will be announced (2 minutes). Add any articles or notes you already trust to the Library so later answers are grounded in them.
  2. Run Brainstorm on the motion and pick the two or three angles you can explain in one sentence each (5 minutes). Discard angles that need evidence you do not have.
  3. Generate a case for your side (10 minutes). Read the predicted opponent case before your own contentions: it tells you what you will have to answer.
  4. Run a Sparring round in your format (15 minutes). Give every speech in full, at time, without pausing to edit. Voice mode lets you speak instead of type.
  5. Read the verdict and write down the single reason it gives for the decision (3 minutes).
  6. Rebuild only that part (5 minutes): ask Attack to stress-test the rewritten argument, or regenerate the one case section that failed.
  7. Give the rebuilt speech again against the timer (5 minutes). Compare it with the first attempt.

The discipline is in step six. Fixing one problem per session sticks; rewriting the whole case after every round mostly produces new problems.

Worked example: one practice round

Motion: This house would ban smartphones in secondary schools

Side and format: Proposition, run as a School 4-6-6-3 Sparring round.

First contention: Phones fragment attention in class, and attention is the input every other kind of learning depends on.

AI opponent's response: Schools already confiscate phones during lessons, so a ban changes only break times, where the harm you described does not happen.

What the verdict flagged: Proposition never explained what a ban adds over existing classroom rules, so the opposition's mitigation stood unanswered.

The drill: Ask Attack to find the gap in the contention, then rewrite it around breaks: social exclusion, cyberbullying during the school day, and the cost of teachers enforcing rules lesson by lesson.

Second attempt: The R1 speech now opens with the comparison: classroom rules depend on every teacher enforcing them every hour, while a ban sets one rule at the school gate. The opponent's mitigation becomes a point in your favour.

The example shows the pattern to look for. The first version was not wrong; it was incomplete in a way only a responsive opponent exposes. That is the gap AI practice fills between team practices.

Format-specific practice tips

World Schools (WSDC)

WSDC rounds reward a consistent team line, so practise as a team even when you use AI. Agree the line in one sentence, then have each speaker run their own section against the AI and check that the line survives. Points of Information matter in every substantive speech: use Crossfire with the AI asking the questions to rehearse taking a POI, answering in under fifteen seconds, and returning to your structure. Sparring does not run a WSDC round, so time the eight-minute substantives and four-minute reply yourself.

British Parliamentary (BP)

In BP, two teams on each bench compete with each other as well as with the other side. Practise both halves. For opening, generate a case with the format set to British Parliamentary and drill a clear definition and model in the first two minutes. For closing, take an opening case you have already generated and practise finding an extension it does not contain, then deliver it in seven minutes without repeating opening material.

Public Forum (PF)

Sparring runs Public Forum with four-minute constructives and rebuttals, three-minute summaries and two-minute final focuses. Use the round to practise the hardest skill in PF: keeping summary and final focus consistent. Before each summary, write the two issues you will collapse on, and check after the round whether your final focus extended exactly those issues and nothing new.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

The Lincoln-Douglas round follows the standard times: six-minute affirmative constructive, seven-minute negative constructive, four-minute first affirmative rebuttal, six-minute negative rebuttal and three-minute second affirmative rebuttal. The 1AR is where most affirmatives lose. Run it repeatedly against the same negative constructive and practise grouping responses and cross-applying your framework, so four minutes covers seven.

How to tell whether practice is working

Keep a short log for each session in the debate's notes or on paper. Track the same four things every time:

  • Arguments you dropped: anything the opponent said that you never answered. This number should fall first.
  • Time use: whether you finished each speech within ten seconds of the limit without rushing the last point.
  • Weighing: whether your final speech compared impacts explicitly, or just repeated them.
  • Verdict reasons: whether the judge's reason for the decision changes from session to session, or keeps naming the same weakness.

If the same verdict reason appears three sessions in a row, stop running full rounds and drill that one skill in isolation until it changes.

Where AI practice stops being enough

An AI opponent is consistent and always available, which is exactly what makes it a good training partner and a limited judge. It will not reproduce the judge who dislikes speed, the panel that splits, or the opponent who asks a question you never anticipated. Use AI rounds for volume between real practices, and save team practices and coached rounds for adaptation, delivery and the feedback only an experienced person can give.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students WSDC Debate Practice With AI Drills @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Policy Debate Prep with AI British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI Congressional Debate Prep with AI
-

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?

Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?

No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context.

Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?

Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round.

+

Frequently asked questions

Which formats can I spar against the AI in?

Sparring runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds with their speech order and times. For WSDC, British Parliamentary and other formats you can still generate cases, get coaching and drill rebuttals, and time speeches yourself.

Can I give my practice speeches out loud?

Yes. Sparring and Crossfire can run as spoken rounds in the browser, so you can practise delivery as well as content.

How often should I practise against an AI opponent?

Two or three focused sessions a week usually beats one long one. Each session should end with one specific fix that you drill before the next round.

Does AI practice replace a coach or real rounds?

No. It adds repetitions between team practices. Judge adaptation, delivery under pressure and strategic judgement still develop fastest with people.

Are my practice rounds private?

Yes. Rounds, verdicts and debriefs are saved to your account inside the Current Debate they belong to, behind sign-in. Search engines only see these public guides.

diff --git a/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html b/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html index c2d717c22..1ab282081 100644 --- a/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate
Tool guide

AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate

Find the weak link, build the block, and practice the response.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Weak warrant detection

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Block building

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Response practice

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Weak warrant detection

Block building

Response practice

What an AI rebuttal generator should do

A useful tool points you to the weakest part of the opponent's argument and helps you build a targeted response, not a generic counter-narrative.

How to use generated rebuttals

Take the generated block, adapt it to the specific argument, and practice saying it under time. The best rebuttals are concise and repeated.

Pair with cross-ex

If your rebuttal attacks a warrant, your cross-ex should force the opponent to defend or abandon that warrant. Practice both with DebateLab.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/ai-tools-for-debate-students/index.html b/public/ai-tools-for-debate-students/index.html index cdad50ad7..f5e8dbd2e 100644 --- a/public/ai-tools-for-debate-students/index.html +++ b/public/ai-tools-for-debate-students/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI Tools for Debate Students
Student guide

AI Tools for Debate Students

Choose tools that improve preparation without replacing research, coaching, or judgment.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Case prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Research support

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Practice feedback

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Case prep

Research support

Practice feedback

What students actually need

Debate students need more than text generation. Useful tools support research, structure, drills, feedback, flowcharts, and timed practice.

Keep humans in the loop

AI can suggest arguments and objections, but students should verify sources, adapt style, and make strategic choices themselves.

Why DebateLab combines workflows

DebateLab brings core prep tasks into one place so students can move from case draft to rebuttal drill to speech practice.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep/index.html b/public/ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep/index.html index 253f0f3bd..427b8734f 100644 --- a/public/ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep/index.html +++ b/public/ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / AI vs Traditional Debate Prep
Comparison

AI vs Traditional Debate Prep

AI speeds up structure; traditional research and coaching provide depth and judgment.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Speed and structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Research depth

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Human judgment

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Speed and structure

Research depth

Human judgment

What AI does well

AI generates structure fast: case outlines, rebuttal blocks, topic brainstorming, and evidence leads. It saves time on the repetitive parts of prep.

What traditional prep does better

Original source reading, real coaching feedback, tournament-specific strategy, and adapting to a specific opponent all require human judgment.

How to combine them

Use AI for scaffolding, use traditional research for depth, and use coaching for strategy. DebateLab supports the AI scaffolding step.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html index 3ec38e7bb..2c6fc421c 100644 --- a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html +++ b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Map the Clash With an Argument Flowchart
Flowing guide

Map the Clash With an Argument Flowchart

Turn cases and rebuttals into a visual map of claims, warrants, impacts, and weighing.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Visual clash maps

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Link chains

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Weighing notes

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Visual clash maps

Link chains

Weighing notes

Why flowcharts help debaters

Debate rounds become messy fast. A flowchart keeps the important relationships visible: what claim depends on which warrant, where the clash sits, and what impact comparison matters.

Build from the motion outward

Start with burdens, add each contention, then connect evidence and rebuttals. If a link is missing, the map makes the gap obvious.

Use the map for speeches

Before speaking, choose the path that wins the round. A good flowchart helps you collapse instead of spreading yourself thin.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students diff --git a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html index c88073d23..e5a358c25 100644 --- a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html +++ b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html @@ -15,15 +15,15 @@ - +
DebateLab / Best AI Debate Tools Compared
Comparison

Best AI Debate Tools Compared

See how AI debate tools compare on features, formats, and prep workflows.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Feature comparison

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Format coverage

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Workflow differences

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

-

What to look for in an AI debate tool

Good tools provide structure, not just text. They support case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence leads, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice.

How DebateLab compares

DebateLab combines multiple prep workflows in one workspace. Other tools may focus on voice debating, research, or specific formats.

Choosing the right tool

Pick the tool that matches your format, your prep style, and your tournament schedule. Trial options help you test before committing.

+

Feature comparison

What each kind of tool does well: general chatbots, research assistants, dedicated debate platforms, and timers or flowing tools.

Format coverage

Which formats a tool actually models, from Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas to WSDC and British Parliamentary, and where you still prep by hand.

Workflow differences

Whether cases, sources, practice rounds and feedback stay connected to one motion, or end up scattered across chats and documents.

+

The four kinds of AI debate tool

Debaters use AI tools for different jobs, and the categories overlap less than the marketing suggests. Most prep setups combine at least two of these.

General AI chatbots

Assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are flexible and good at brainstorming, explaining a concept or tightening a paragraph. Their weakness for debate is structure: they do not hold a motion, side and format across sessions unless you rebuild the context each time, and they will produce confident claims without sources unless you ask.

Research and citation tools

AI search and research assistants are strongest at finding sources quickly. They help with evidence but not with turning evidence into arguments, rebuttals or speeches.

Dedicated debate platforms

These are built around debate concepts: cases with contentions, rebuttals, opponents and verdicts. They vary a great deal in which formats they model and whether they let you practise or only generate text.

Practice utilities

Timers, flowing templates and argument maps. Often simple, sometimes not AI-based at all, and still essential for practice that matches tournament conditions.

Eight criteria for comparing AI debate tools

  1. Structure: does the output separate claim, warrant and impact, or is it a wall of text?
  2. Format awareness: does it know your speech order, times and roles, or treat every debate as an essay?
  3. Sources: can you see where a claim comes from, and can you add your own material for it to use?
  4. Opposition: does it predict and argue the other side, or only help with yours?
  5. Practice: can you deliver a speech and get a response to it, not just read generated text?
  6. Feedback: does it tell you why an argument failed, with something specific to fix?
  7. Continuity: does work stay organised by motion, or do you lose it in a long chat history?
  8. Limits and privacy: what is the daily or monthly allowance, and who can see your prep?

Weight the criteria by what you need. A novice benefits most from structure and feedback; an experienced competitor often cares most about sources, opposition and practice.

A one-hour test you can run on any tool

Reviews and feature lists only go so far. The fairest comparison is to give every tool the same motion and the same tasks:

  1. Pick a motion in your format that you know well, so you can judge the quality of the answers.
  2. Ask each tool for a case on one side. Score it on structure and on whether the warrants actually prove the claims.
  3. Ask each tool for the strongest argument against that case. Score whether it found the real weak point or a generic objection.
  4. Paste one of your own past speeches and ask what it would change. Score how specific the feedback is.
  5. Ask for evidence on one factual claim. Open every source and score how many check out.
  6. Note how much context you had to repeat between steps.

Fifteen minutes per tool is enough to see the difference. Keep the scores; they are more useful than any ranking list, including this one.

Worked example: scoring answers to one motion

Motion: This house would make voting compulsory

Task: Find the weakest link in the proposition argument that compulsory voting produces a more representative government.

Strong answer: Points out that turnout and representation are different: compelled voters who know little about the candidates may vote randomly or for the first name on the ballot, so higher turnout may not mean preferences are better represented.

Weak answer: Says compulsory voting violates freedom. That is an opposition argument, not an attack on the proposition's link, and it does not engage with representation at all.

How to score it: Give the point only if the tool attacked the warrant (why more voters means better representation) rather than changing the subject.

Running the same task through several tools shows quickly which ones understand debate structure and which ones produce plausible but generic text.

Which tools fit which format

World Schools (WSDC)

WSDC prep is team prep under time pressure, often for impromptu motions. Prioritise fast brainstorming and motion analysis, plus a way to practise Points of Information. Few tools model the full WSDC round, so expect to time speeches yourself.

British Parliamentary (BP)

BP rewards role knowledge and extensions. Look for tools that let you set the format and your team position, and that can show you what the opening half is likely to say so closing teams can plan something new.

Public Forum (PF)

PF depends on evidence and on keeping summary and final focus consistent. Strong source handling matters more here than in most formats, along with practice rounds that use real PF speech times.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

LD needs tools that handle value and criterion, not just policy arguments. Test whether a tool can defend a framework and link contentions to it, and whether it can practise the time-pressured 1AR.

Where DebateLab fits

DebateLab is a dedicated debate platform that keeps every case, source, round and debrief inside one Current Debate. It covers case generation with a predicted opponent case, Library sources that ground every answer, Attack for finding weak links, Brainstorm, Factoids for checking claims, an Ask coaching chat with optional citations, Crossfire and full Sparring rounds with a verdict, a speech timer and an argument flowchart.

Its limits are worth stating plainly. Sparring currently runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds, so WSDC and BP practice uses the prep and coaching tools rather than a full simulated round. Like every AI tool, its evidence leads need checking against the original source. Run the one-hour test above and decide on your own results.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Argument Flowchart Tool for Debate Prep Online Debate Timer for Practice Rounds How to Write a Debate Case Guide
-

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?

Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?

No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context.

Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?

Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round.

+

Frequently asked questions

What is the best AI tool for debate?

It depends on the job. General chatbots are flexible for brainstorming, research tools find sources, and dedicated debate platforms add structure, opponents and practice. Most debaters do best with a dedicated platform plus a way to verify sources.

Is a general chatbot good enough for debate prep?

For brainstorming and explaining concepts, often yes. It is weaker at keeping a motion, side and format in context, predicting the opposing case, timing speeches and giving round-style feedback.

Are free AI debate tools enough?

Free tiers are a good way to run the comparison test. Check the daily or monthly limits against how many practice sessions you plan before a tournament.

Can I use AI tools during a debate round?

Usually not. Most leagues restrict or ban internet access and electronic help during rounds. Check your league's rules, and use AI tools for preparation.

How should I compare AI debate tools fairly?

Give every tool the same motion and the same tasks, such as a case, the strongest counter, feedback on your speech and evidence for one claim, then score each answer against the same criteria.

diff --git a/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html b/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html index 52b6a2eab..5f214e53d 100644 --- a/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html +++ b/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI

Practice BP roles, extensions, POIs, and comparative weighing.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Motion analysis

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Extension strategy

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

POI practice

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Motion analysis

Extension strategy

POI practice

BP roles and strategy

BP has four teams: Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government, Closing Opposition. Each role has different responsibilities and winning strategies.

Extensions that win

Closing teams must extend by adding new analysis, not repeating opening arguments. DebateLab helps you brainstorm credible extensions from any motion.

POIs and weighing

Points of information expose holes in reasoning. Practice generating and answering POIs, and compare impacts clearly for the judge.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/congress-debate/index.html b/public/congress-debate/index.html index 4ac992265..1da7ae518 100644 --- a/public/congress-debate/index.html +++ b/public/congress-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Congressional Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

Congressional Debate Prep with AI

Draft congress speeches, practice questioning, and prepare crystallization.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Bill analysis

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Speech drafting

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Questioning prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Bill analysis

Speech drafting

Questioning prep

Bill analysis and speeches

Congress debate requires understanding legislation, sponsorship, and opposition. DebateLab helps you draft speeches that add value, not repetition.

Questioning and ranking

Effective questioning exposes flaws in reasoning without grandstanding. Practice generating pointed congress questions and ranking arguments for crystallization.

Crystallization speeches

Crystallization means telling the judges why your side won the key clashes. Practice selecting the right arguments and framing the ballot.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-argument-flowchart-tool/index.html b/public/debate-argument-flowchart-tool/index.html index bc351c7f3..5bdbffda9 100644 --- a/public/debate-argument-flowchart-tool/index.html +++ b/public/debate-argument-flowchart-tool/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Argument Flowchart Tool
Tool guide

Debate Argument Flowchart Tool

Visualize the round before you speak with a clash map.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Visual clash mapping

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Link and impact tracking

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Weighing notes

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Visual clash mapping

Link and impact tracking

Weighing notes

Why a flowchart helps

Arguments are chains. If one link breaks, the whole contention falls. A flowchart makes the chain visible so you can see where to attack.

How to build a flowchart

Start with the motion, add each contention, connect evidence and rebuttals, and mark weighing at each clash point.

Use the map in round

A good flowchart helps you decide what to collapse to, what to drop, and what to extend. Practice with DebateLab.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-block-file-guide/index.html b/public/debate-block-file-guide/index.html index 80e0da4bd..d73deece2 100644 --- a/public/debate-block-file-guide/index.html +++ b/public/debate-block-file-guide/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Build a Debate Block File
Strategy guide

How to Build a Debate Block File

Pre-written blocks let you respond faster and more precisely in round.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Block structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Clash organization

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Evidence integration

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Block structure

Clash organization

Evidence integration

What is a block file

A block file is a collection of pre-written responses to common arguments. It saves prep time and improves response quality in round.

How to organize blocks

Organize by clash, not by topic. Each clash should have blocks for both sides so you are ready regardless of which side you are assigned.

Using AI to build blocks

DebateLab can help you brainstorm likely arguments and draft initial blocks. Verify the logic and evidence before using them in round.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-case-generator/index.html b/public/debate-case-generator/index.html index 344f87065..9ceaf4e24 100644 --- a/public/debate-case-generator/index.html +++ b/public/debate-case-generator/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Generate Structured Debate Cases in Minutes
Feature guide

Generate Structured Debate Cases in Minutes

Create a starting structure you can improve, verify, and adapt for your format.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Claims and warrants

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Impacts and weighing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Counters and prep notes

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Claims and warrants

Impacts and weighing

Counters and prep notes

What a useful debate case includes

A strong case separates claims from warrants and impacts. It also makes weighing explicit so the judge knows why your argument matters more.

DebateLab helps turn a motion into contentions, reasoning chains, counters, and prep notes instead of a flat paragraph of generic arguments.

Use generated cases responsibly

Generated cases are drafts. The best workflow is to generate structure, check assumptions, add verified evidence, and then practice attacking the case yourself.

From draft to round strategy

Once the case exists, the real question is what the other side can exploit. Use DebateLab to find weak warrants, missing examples, and impact comparisons.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students diff --git a/public/debate-clash-points/index.html b/public/debate-clash-points/index.html index ab3f01aff..a4768f9ff 100644 --- a/public/debate-clash-points/index.html +++ b/public/debate-clash-points/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Clash Points: Find and Attack the Key Argument
Strategy guide

Debate Clash Points: Find and Attack the Key Argument

Identify the clash that decides the round and focus your prep there.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Clash identification

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Clash selection

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Ballot framing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Clash identification

Clash selection

Ballot framing

What is a clash point

A clash is the point where two sides disagree. The key clash is the one the judge must resolve to decide the round.

How to find the key clash

Ask: which disagreement, if resolved in my favor, wins me the round? That is the clash to focus on.

Framing the clash for the judge

Tell the judge why this clash matters and why your side wins it. If you frame the clash, you frame the ballot.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-collapsing-strategy/index.html b/public/debate-collapsing-strategy/index.html index 913e0a75a..78c68cdfa 100644 --- a/public/debate-collapsing-strategy/index.html +++ b/public/debate-collapsing-strategy/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Collapse in Debate
Strategy guide

How to Collapse in Debate

Collapsing means choosing the few arguments that win and abandoning the rest.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Clash selection

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Time concentration

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Ballot framing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Clash selection

Time concentration

Ballot framing

Why collapsing matters

If you spread yourself thin, you lose. Collapsing lets you spend more time on the argument that actually wins the round.

How to decide what to collapse to

Pick the clash where you have the strongest evidence, the clearest warrant, and the best weighing. Drop the rest cleanly.

How to collapse cleanly

Signal that you are collapsing, explain why the dropped arguments do not matter, and spend your remaining time on the winning clash.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-cross-examination-tips/index.html b/public/debate-cross-examination-tips/index.html index 21601a888..d2c8fcb31 100644 --- a/public/debate-cross-examination-tips/index.html +++ b/public/debate-cross-examination-tips/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Cross-Examination Tips for Debate
Strategy guide

Cross-Examination Tips for Debate

Ask the right questions, expose the weak links, and use the answers.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Question design

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Time management

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Concession usage

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Question design

Time management

Concession usage

How to design cross-ex questions

Ask leading, closed questions that force yes or no answers. Never give the opponent a platform to make new arguments.

Time management in cross-ex

Prioritize the questions that expose the biggest weakness. Do not waste time on minor points that will not affect the ballot.

Using concessions in your speech

If the opponent concedes a point in cross-ex, remind the judge in your speech. Concessions are the strongest form of evidence.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html index bcdbe6bb4..2673f8338 100644 --- a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html +++ b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Find Better Debate Evidence Without Losing the Argument
Research workflow

Find Better Debate Evidence Without Losing the Argument

Use AI to locate research directions, then verify sources and connect evidence to warrants.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Evidence leads

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Citation checks

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Impact links

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Evidence leads

Citation checks

Impact links

Evidence is not the argument

Cards win rounds only when they support a clear warrant. A source should answer a burden, not decorate a speech.

DebateLab helps move from a claim to research leads, source checks, and the impact comparison the judge must evaluate.

Verify before you read it aloud

Open the original source, check date and author, confirm the quote, and explain why the evidence proves your link. Never rely on an AI summary alone.

Connect research to clash

The best evidence pages are tied to specific clashes: solvency, harms, tradeoffs, comparative examples, and weighing.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students diff --git a/public/debate-evidence-verification/index.html b/public/debate-evidence-verification/index.html index 39856c83b..d6cf63ea8 100644 --- a/public/debate-evidence-verification/index.html +++ b/public/debate-evidence-verification/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Evidence Verification Guide
Guide

Debate Evidence Verification Guide

A bad card is worse than no card. Verify every source before you read it in round.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Source checking

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Quote confirmation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Methodology evaluation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Source checking

Quote confirmation

Methodology evaluation

Why verification matters

If your evidence is challenged and found wanting, your credibility is gone. A verified card is a weapon; an unverified one is a liability.

How to verify evidence

Check the author, publication date, methodology, sample size, and context of the quote. Make sure it actually says what you claim it says.

What to do if evidence is weak

Do not read it. Find a better source, or make the argument analytically without relying on a weak card.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-fallacies/index.html b/public/debate-fallacies/index.html index ad6891bfa..6fa5d612b 100644 --- a/public/debate-fallacies/index.html +++ b/public/debate-fallacies/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Common Debate Fallacies and How to Attack Them
Strategy guide

Common Debate Fallacies and How to Attack Them

Turn your opponent's bad logic into round-winning rebuttals.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Fallacy identification

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Attack strategies

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Cross-ex exploitation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Fallacy identification

Attack strategies

Cross-ex exploitation

Why fallacies matter

If your opponent commits a fallacy, you can win the clash by pointing it out and explaining why the argument fails.

Common fallacies in debate

Ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy, slippery slope, hasty generalization, appeal to authority, and circular reasoning are the most common.

How to attack a fallacy

Do not just name it. Explain why the logic fails, why the conclusion does not follow, and what the judge should do about it.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-impact-calculus/index.html b/public/debate-impact-calculus/index.html index c0b4c157d..1f2e98e85 100644 --- a/public/debate-impact-calculus/index.html +++ b/public/debate-impact-calculus/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Impact Calculus Guide
Strategy guide

Debate Impact Calculus Guide

Compare impacts systematically so the judge knows why yours matters more.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Magnitude and probability

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Timeframe and scope

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Reversibility and link strength

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Magnitude and probability

Timeframe and scope

Reversibility and link strength

What is impact calculus

Impact calculus is the process of comparing impacts across multiple dimensions to determine which one the judge should prefer.

The six dimensions

Magnitude (how big), probability (how likely), timeframe (how soon), reversibility (can it be undone), scope (who is affected), and link strength (how certain is the causal chain).

When to do calculus

Start in your constructive, reinforce in rebuttals, and crystallize in the final speech. Early calculus frames the round.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html b/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html index 07a9a4477..e8281319d 100644 --- a/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html +++ b/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Judge Adaptation Guide
Strategy guide

Debate Judge Adaptation Guide

Read the judge, adapt your style, and frame the ballot they want to write.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Judge types

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Style adaptation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Ballot framing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Judge types

Style adaptation

Ballot framing

Types of judges

Lay judges want clear stories, flow judges want structured clash, tech judges want speed and evidence. Read the judge and adapt.

How to adapt your style

Slow down for lay judges, speed up for tech judges, and always explain your weighing clearly regardless of judge type.

Framing the ballot

Give the judge a reason to vote for you that fits their style. The best debaters make the judge's job easy.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html b/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html index cb74c78f2..ebd40850c 100644 --- a/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html +++ b/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Motion Analysis Guide
Strategy guide

Debate Motion Analysis Guide

From topic to strategy: define, clash, and build a winning case.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Definition strategy

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Burden identification

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Clash mapping

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Definition strategy

Burden identification

Clash mapping

How to analyze a motion

Read the motion carefully, define each term, identify what each side must prove, and map the likely clashes.

Definition strategy

Definitions can frame the round. Choose definitions that are fair, defensible, and favorable to your side.

Burden identification

Your burden is what you must prove to win. If you do not meet your burden, you lose regardless of how well you argue.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-note-taking-flowing/index.html b/public/debate-note-taking-flowing/index.html index a5517e8c3..202a9e7cb 100644 --- a/public/debate-note-taking-flowing/index.html +++ b/public/debate-note-taking-flowing/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Note Taking and Flowing Guide
Guide

Debate Note Taking and Flowing Guide

Flowing is debate literacy. Learn it, practice it, and use it in every round.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Column structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Abbreviation systems

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Dropped argument tracking

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Column structure

Abbreviation systems

Dropped argument tracking

Why flowing is essential

If you cannot track the round, you cannot respond strategically. Flowing is the foundation of competitive debate.

How to structure your flow

Use columns for each speech: affirmative constructive, negative constructive, affirmative rebuttal, negative rebuttal. Track arguments across columns.

Tracking dropped arguments

Mark dropped arguments immediately. A dropped argument is a concession, and concessions win rounds.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-prep-time-management/index.html b/public/debate-prep-time-management/index.html index 10b9e5b76..dcf1b40ac 100644 --- a/public/debate-prep-time-management/index.html +++ b/public/debate-prep-time-management/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Prep Time Management
Strategy guide

Debate Prep Time Management

Use your limited prep time to build the arguments that win rounds.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Prep allocation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Block building strategy

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Speech prioritization

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Prep allocation

Block building strategy

Speech prioritization

Why prep management matters

Prep time is limited. The best debaters spend it on the clashes that decide the round, not on reading every card.

How to allocate prep time

Spend the first third on case structure, the second on rebuttal blocks, and the last on speech organization and weighing.

Tournament-day prep

Before the round, organize evidence, confirm arguments, and practice the opening. During prep time, prioritize blocks over new research.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-pronunciation-and-delivery/index.html b/public/debate-pronunciation-and-delivery/index.html index 00f2a6a96..42b6dbdba 100644 --- a/public/debate-pronunciation-and-delivery/index.html +++ b/public/debate-pronunciation-and-delivery/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Speech Delivery and Pronunciation Guide
Delivery guide

Debate Speech Delivery and Pronunciation Guide

Clear delivery makes your arguments land. Slow down, emphasize key words, and pause where it matters.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Clarity and pacing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Emphasis techniques

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Pause strategy

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Clarity and pacing

Emphasis techniques

Pause strategy

Why delivery matters

The judge cannot vote for an argument they did not hear clearly. Speed without clarity is wasted effort.

How to improve delivery

Slow down on tags and author names, pause between contentions, and emphasize weighing phrases. Practice with a timer and record yourself.

Common delivery problems

Speaking too fast, mumbling, monotone delivery, and forgetting to pause. Each of these can cost you rounds even with strong arguments.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html b/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html index eefa51b77..0c22acdc8 100644 --- a/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html +++ b/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html @@ -15,15 +15,15 @@ - +
DebateLab / Practice Rebuttals Before Your Opponent Finds the Weakness
Feature guide

Practice Rebuttals Before Your Opponent Finds the Weakness

Choose the link to attack, explain why it matters, and turn pressure into round-winning collapse.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Find weak warrants

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Build targeted blocks

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Practice weighing and collapse

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

-

What makes a rebuttal effective

A good rebuttal does not answer every sentence. It attacks the part of the argument that matters: warrant, evidence quality, internal link, impact, or weighing comparison.

DebateLab helps identify those pressure points so your prep produces sharper responses.

Train with your own cases

Paste a case, speech, or contention and ask what a strong opponent would attack. Then build blocks that answer the most likely objections.

Use cross-examination as a weapon

Weak warrants often become strong cross-examination questions. DebateLab can help turn hidden assumptions into questions that expose the other side's burden.

+

Find weak warrants

Paste an argument into Attack and get the links that fail: missing warrants, overclaimed impacts and assumptions the other side never proved.

Build targeted blocks

Turn each weakness into a short block with a tag line, the response and why it matters, kept in your Current Debate.

Practice weighing and collapse

Deliver rebuttals in a Sparring round and see in the verdict whether your weighing changed the outcome.

+

The five ways to answer an argument

Every rebuttal is one of a small number of moves. Naming the move before you speak keeps the response short and makes it obvious to the judge what you have done:

  • Deny the claim: show the thing they say happens does not happen.
  • Attack the warrant: accept the claim could be true, but show their reason for it does not prove it.
  • Mitigate the impact: concede the mechanism but show the effect is smaller, rarer or slower than they said.
  • Turn it: show their argument actually supports your side.
  • Outweigh it: concede the point and show your impact matters more.

Attacking the warrant is usually the strongest choice, because a claim without a warrant gives the judge nothing to weigh. Turns are the most powerful when they work and the most dangerous when they do not, so practise them before using them in a round.

A 20-minute rebuttal drill

  1. Choose one opposing argument you expect to face. If you have generated a case, take it from the predicted opponent case.
  2. Paste it into Attack and read the weaknesses it finds. Pick the one that breaks the argument, not the one that is easiest to say.
  3. Write a block: a five-word tag line, the response in two or three sentences, and one sentence on why it matters for the round.
  4. Time yourself delivering the block in under forty-five seconds.
  5. Ask the coach for the best answer to your block, and add a one-sentence reply to the bottom.
  6. Repeat with the next most likely argument. Three tested blocks per session is a good pace.

File each block in the same Current Debate so your rebuttals sit next to the case they answer.

Worked example: rebutting one argument

Motion: This house would ban zoos

Opposition argument: Zoos protect endangered species through captive breeding programmes, so a ban would push some species closer to extinction.

Weak link: The argument assumes that captive breeding requires zoos as they exist now, with public display, rather than conservation centres run for that purpose.

Response (attack the warrant): Breeding programmes need specialist facilities and genetic management, not visitors. A ban on zoos as public attractions does not stop sanctuaries and conservation centres from running them.

Response (mitigate): Most animals kept in zoos are not part of reintroduction programmes, so even if some breeding is lost, the protection the opposition claims is far smaller than their argument suggests.

Weighing: Even at full strength, their benefit applies to a small number of species. Our harm, keeping animals in conditions that do not meet their needs for public entertainment, applies to every animal in every zoo.

Forty-five second version: Their benefit is breeding, but breeding does not need an audience. Ban the attraction, keep the conservation centres, and their argument disappears.

The response does not argue about whether conservation matters. It targets the one assumption the argument needs, which is faster and harder to answer.

Rebuttal tips by format

World Schools (WSDC)

Rebuttal grows through the bench: the first opposition speaker begins it, the second speaker does the bulk of it, and the third speaker organises the debate into its main clashes and should not add new arguments. Practise third-speaker rebuttal by taking a full set of opposing points and grouping them under two or three questions, then answering each question once.

British Parliamentary (BP)

Closing teams must rebut and extend at the same time, so practise blocks that answer the opening bench across from you and then lead straight into your extension. Whips should rebut by clash, not speaker by speaker, and avoid new material.

Public Forum (PF)

In a four-minute rebuttal, the second-speaking team should answer the attacks made on its own case as well as attacking the opponent's, or those arguments will be hard to bring back in summary. Practise splitting the four minutes, and remember that what is not in summary should not appear in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

The 1AR has four minutes to answer seven minutes of negative material. Practise grouping similar responses, cross-applying your framework to several arguments at once, and saying the important responses first so the 2AR has something to extend. For the negative rebuttal, drill collapsing onto the one or two arguments that best outweigh.

Use cross-examination to set up your rebuttal

The best rebuttals often start in cross-examination. If an argument rests on an assumption, ask a question that gets the speaker to commit to it, then attack the assumption in your speech. Crossfire lets you practise this against the AI, asking questions or answering them, and each Crossfire ends with a debrief you can turn into new blocks.

Common rebuttal mistakes

  • Answering every sentence instead of the argument the round depends on.
  • Restating your own case rather than engaging with theirs.
  • Giving a response without saying why it matters for the decision.
  • Leaving the weighing to the final speech, when the judge has already started deciding.
  • Losing track of what has been dropped. Keep a flow, or map the clash in the argument flowchart, so nothing important goes unanswered.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students WSDC Debate Practice With AI Drills @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Policy Debate Prep with AI British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI Congressional Debate Prep with AI
-

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?

Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?

No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context.

Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?

Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round.

+

Frequently asked questions

How can I practise rebuttals on my own?

Take the arguments you expect to face, find each one's weakest link with Attack, write a short block, and deliver it against a timer. Then ask the AI for the best reply to your block and prepare an answer.

How long should a rebuttal response be?

Most single responses should take under a minute. Total rebuttal time depends on the format, from four minutes in Public Forum to most of an eight-minute WSDC speech.

What is the difference between a rebuttal and a block?

A block is a rebuttal prepared before the round for an argument you expect. In the round you adapt the block to what the opponent actually said.

Can the AI predict my opponent's arguments?

Yes. Each generated case includes a predicted opponent case, which is a practical list of arguments to prepare blocks against.

How do I stop dropping arguments?

Flow every speech, mark each opposing argument as answered or not, and group similar arguments so one response covers several. Practise against a timer until it becomes routine.

diff --git a/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html b/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html index 5fb9a82b8..7d37b2c43 100644 --- a/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html +++ b/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Speech Structure Guide
Strategy guide

Debate Speech Structure Guide

Structure your speech so the judge can follow every argument and every comparison.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Opening structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Rebuttal structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Final speech structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Opening structure

Rebuttal structure

Final speech structure

Why structure matters

A well-structured speech is easier to flow, easier to judge, and easier to win. The judge should never be confused about where you are.

Opening speech structure

State your position, define key terms, present contentions with warrants and impacts, and preview weighing.

Rebuttal and final speech structure

Respond to the key clash, extend your offense, weigh the comparison, and frame the ballot. End by telling the judge why you win.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html b/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html index dd16062fc..4e6d12abd 100644 --- a/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html +++ b/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Topics for Students
Resource

Debate Topics for Students

Find topics, brainstorm cases, and start preparing with AI-guided prompts.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Topic categories

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Case brainstorming

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Format-specific topics

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Topic categories

Case brainstorming

Format-specific topics

How to pick a debate topic

A good topic has clear clashes, real-world stakes, and enough literature for both sides. DebateLab can help you brainstorm cases from any topic.

Popular debate topics

Common topic areas include technology, education, environment, foreign policy, civil liberties, economics, and ethics. Each area has predictable clashes.

From topic to prep

Once you pick a topic, use DebateLab to draft a case, attack it, find evidence leads, and practice the speech.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debate-weighing-guide/index.html b/public/debate-weighing-guide/index.html index aff1ddf42..c679c1b5b 100644 --- a/public/debate-weighing-guide/index.html +++ b/public/debate-weighing-guide/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Debate Weighing Guide for Cleaner Impact Calculus
Strategy guide

Debate Weighing Guide for Cleaner Impact Calculus

Compare impacts with magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility, scope, and link strength.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Impact calculus

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Judge framing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Strategic collapse

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Impact calculus

Judge framing

Strategic collapse

Weighing tells the judge what matters

Two teams can both win offense. Weighing explains which impact should be prioritized and why that comparison is fair.

Use more than magnitude

Magnitude matters, but so do probability, timeframe, reversibility, scope, and link strength. DebateLab helps you test which comparison is strongest.

Make weighing early

The best teams do not wait until the final speech to compare impacts. Build weighing into cases, rebuttals, and summaries.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debatelab-alternatives/index.html b/public/debatelab-alternatives/index.html index 9d56bc611..1be510de7 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-alternatives/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-alternatives/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / DebateLab Alternatives and Competitors
Comparison

DebateLab Alternatives and Competitors

See how other AI debate tools compare, and what makes DebateLab different.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Tool comparison

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Feature differences

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Workflow coverage

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Tool comparison

Feature differences

Workflow coverage

Why people search for DebateLab alternatives

Debaters compare tools to find the best fit for their format, budget, and prep style. This page helps you compare honestly.

What makes DebateLab different

DebateLab focuses on structured prep workflows rather than just chatting with an AI. It supports cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing.

How to compare tools fairly

Look at format coverage, feature depth, feedback quality, pricing transparency, and whether the tool supports your actual tournament workflow.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html b/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html index a7308b34f..fb083c9a1 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / DebateLab Pricing and Plans
Pricing

DebateLab Pricing and Plans

See what DebateLab offers and how to get started with AI debate practice.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Free trial

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Pro features

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Student plans

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Free trial

Pro features

Student plans

DebateLab trial

DebateLab offers a trial so users can explore case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence leads, flowcharts, coaching, and timing before subscribing.

What Pro includes

Pro features include extended AI usage, saved cases, private history, and advanced practice workflows. Check the app for current pricing.

How to decide if DebateLab is worth it

If you debate regularly and need structured prep, DebateLab saves time and improves quality. The trial lets you test the workflow before paying.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html b/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html index 0f5e7e292..113f72aac 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / DebateLab vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep
Comparison

DebateLab vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep

ChatGPT is a general chatbot. DebateLab is a debate practice workspace.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Structured workflows

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Evidence leads

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Practice tools

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Structured workflows

Evidence leads

Practice tools

What ChatGPT does well

ChatGPT is a flexible general-purpose AI. It can brainstorm, draft, and answer questions about any topic, including debate.

What DebateLab does differently

DebateLab is designed for debate prep workflows: case structure, targeted rebuttals, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and timed practice. Each workflow supports a specific prep task.

When to use each

Use ChatGPT for general brainstorming and research. Use DebateLab for structured, repeatable debate practice that mirrors what you do in a round.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html b/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html index 65456aec7..b726c3651 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / DebateLab vs DebateClub
Comparison

DebateLab vs DebateClub

Voice sparring vs structured prep: two approaches to AI debate practice.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Voice vs text workflows

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Feature comparison

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Prep focus areas

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Voice vs text workflows

Feature comparison

Prep focus areas

DebateClub overview

DebateClub focuses on voice-based AI debate sparring with real-time feedback in a conversational format.

DebateLab overview

DebateLab focuses on text-based structured prep: cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice for tournament preparation.

Which approach fits you

If you want voice practice, DebateClub is focused there. If you want structured prep workflows, DebateLab is designed for that.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html b/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html index b9b423fe2..4a06c2d9d 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / DebateLab vs WinDebate
Comparison

DebateLab vs WinDebate

Two AI debate prep platforms compared on features and workflows.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Feature comparison

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Format coverage

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Workflow differences

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Feature comparison

Format coverage

Workflow differences

WinDebate overview

WinDebate focuses on research, drills, feedback, and progress tracking for competitive debaters. It covers PF, LD, Congress, Policy, and Worlds.

DebateLab overview

DebateLab focuses on structured prep workflows: case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and online debate timers.

How to choose

Compare format coverage, feature depth, feedback style, pricing, and which tool fits your actual tournament workflow.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html index 999611fb0..8c57d0217 100644 --- a/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Cross-Examine in Debate
How-to guide

How to Cross-Examine in Debate

Ask questions that expose assumptions, not questions that let the opponent talk.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Leading questions

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Warrant exposure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Time management

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Leading questions

Warrant exposure

Time management

The goal of cross-examination

Cross-ex is not a speech. It is a tool to expose weaknesses. Ask leading questions that force concessions or reveal unsupported claims.

Common cross-ex mistakes

Asking open-ended questions, arguing instead of questioning, and running out of time without making a point are the most common errors.

How to use cross-ex in your speech

Take the concessions from cross-ex and use them in your rebuttal. If the opponent admitted the warrant is weak, remind the judge.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html index 14a0658c6..d25bbac88 100644 --- a/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Flow in Debate
How-to guide

How to Flow in Debate

Flowing is the skill that separates good debaters from great ones.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Argument tracking

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Clash mapping

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Speech organization

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Argument tracking

Clash mapping

Speech organization

Why flowing matters

If you cannot see the argument structure, you cannot respond strategically. Flowing keeps the full round visible on one page.

How to flow efficiently

Use columns for each speech, abbreviate claims and warrants, track the flow of arguments across speeches, and mark dropped arguments.

Using your flow in speeches

Before you speak, look at the flow and decide which clashes you must win. Your speech should trace the flow, not introduce random new arguments.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html b/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html index 4defc48b8..776ebf33e 100644 --- a/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Practice Debate Rebuttals
How-to guide

How to Practice Debate Rebuttals

Build sharper responses by attacking warrants, evidence, impacts, and weighing one drill at a time.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Rebuttal drills

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Cross-ex questions

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Collapse practice

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Rebuttal drills

Cross-ex questions

Collapse practice

Do not rebut everything

Good rebuttal practice teaches selection. Answer the argument that determines the round, not every sentence your opponent says.

Use repeatable drills

Run separate drills for weak warrants, missing examples, evidence quality, impact defense, and comparative weighing.

Turn attacks into speeches

After finding objections, practice explaining them under time. The goal is a clean speech, not a long list of notes.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html b/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html index a0b84913d..9e07ac84f 100644 --- a/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament
How-to guide

How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament

From topic release to tournament day, build a prep system that works.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Topic research

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Block files

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Tournament-day checklist

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Topic research

Block files

Tournament-day checklist

Topic research workflow

Start with topic analysis, identify key clashes, research both sides, and build case templates. DebateLab helps you move from topic to structured prep.

Building block files

Block files are pre-written responses to common arguments. Use DebateLab to brainstorm likely arguments and prepare blocks before the tournament.

Tournament day checklist

Bring extra pens, backup evidence, water, snacks, a timer, and a plan for each round. Mental stamina matters as much as preparation.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html index f0120ee69..a46c1527a 100644 --- a/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Weigh in Debate
How-to guide

How to Weigh in Debate

Use impact calculus to tell the judge why your argument matters more.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Magnitude vs probability

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Timeframe and scope

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Link strength and reversibility

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Magnitude vs probability

Timeframe and scope

Link strength and reversibility

Why weighing wins rounds

If both sides have offense, the judge needs a reason to prefer yours. Weighing gives them that reason by comparing impacts across multiple dimensions.

Types of weighing

Magnitude: how big is the impact? Probability: how likely is it? Timeframe: how soon? Reversibility: can it be undone? Scope: who is affected? Link strength: how certain is the causal chain?

When to weigh

Start weighing in the constructive, reinforce in rebuttals, and crystallize in the final speech. Late weighing is better than no weighing, but early weighing frames the entire round.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html b/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html index 5d9eed5cd..a8dbed058 100644 --- a/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Write a Debate Case
How-to guide

How to Write a Debate Case

Move from motion analysis to contentions, warrants, evidence, impacts, and weighing.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Motion analysis

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Contention structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Weighing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Motion analysis

Contention structure

Weighing

Start with burdens

Before writing contentions, define what your side must prove. A case that misses the burden can sound polished and still lose.

Write contentions as reasoning chains

Each contention should connect claim, warrant, evidence, impact, and weighing. If one piece is missing, mark it before you practice.

Pressure-test the draft

Use DebateLab to attack your own case. The strongest final version usually comes after finding the easiest rebuttals first.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students diff --git a/public/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-speech/index.html b/public/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-speech/index.html index 09995aba0..71476deea 100644 --- a/public/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-speech/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-write-a-rebuttal-speech/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / How to Write a Rebuttal Speech
How-to guide

How to Write a Rebuttal Speech

Select, attack, extend, and frame — the four moves of a winning rebuttal.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Clash selection

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Warrant attacks

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Ballot framing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Clash selection

Warrant attacks

Ballot framing

Select the right clash

Do not answer every argument. Identify the clash that decides the round and focus your rebuttal there.

Attack warrants, not just claims

A claim without a warrant is a bare assertion. Attack the link between the claim and the evidence, and you collapse the entire argument.

Frame the ballot

End your rebuttal by telling the judge exactly why your side wins. If you do not give them a story, they will write their own.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html b/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html index db529a158..74f88563c 100644 --- a/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html +++ b/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI

Build LD cases with values, criteria, contentions, and rebuttal blocks.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Value and criterion structure

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

LD case writing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Cross-examination prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Value and criterion structure

LD case writing

Cross-examination prep

Values and criteria

LD is a value debate. Your value tells the judge what matters; your criterion measures whether you achieve it. DebateLab helps you test whether your criterion actually links to your value.

Case structure for LD

A strong LD case has an opening quote, definitions, value, criterion, and contentions with warrants and impacts. Use DebateLab to draft and pressure-test each piece.

Cross-examination and rebuttal

Cross-ex in LD exposes weak links between value and criterion. Practice generating likely CX questions and building rebuttal blocks for common LD arguments.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/online-debate-timer-tool/index.html b/public/online-debate-timer-tool/index.html index d04e412b0..97fbbb9af 100644 --- a/public/online-debate-timer-tool/index.html +++ b/public/online-debate-timer-tool/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Online Debate Timer Tool for Practice
Tool guide

Online Debate Timer Tool for Practice

Train pacing and speech discipline before the round starts.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Speech timing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Prep timer drills

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Format presets

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Speech timing

Prep timer drills

Format presets

Why timing matters

A great argument delivered too late or too long is a losing argument. Timed practice teaches you to pick the strongest material and deliver it on time.

Drills you can run

30-second rebuttal blocks, full constructive speeches, prep time simulations, and cross-ex timing drills.

Pair timing with feedback

After each timed speech, use DebateLab to identify what was unclear, what was missing, and what to drill next.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html index bbffc51a6..20d36f067 100644 --- a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html +++ b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Practice With an Online Debate Timer
Practice tool

Practice With an Online Debate Timer

Train pacing, prep discipline, and speech structure before the round starts.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Speech timing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Prep drills

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Pacing feedback

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Speech timing

Prep drills

Pacing feedback

Timing changes strategy

A great argument can still lose if it arrives too late or takes too long. Timed practice forces you to pick the strongest material.

Drill one skill at a time

Use short timers for rebuttal blocks, longer timers for full speeches, and prep timers to simulate tournament pressure.

Pair timing with feedback

After each timed speech, use DebateLab to identify unclear structure, missing weighing, and the next drill to repeat.

Related DebateLab guides

Debate Weighing Guide: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe AI Tools for Debate Students diff --git a/public/policy-debate/index.html b/public/policy-debate/index.html index e4052abe4..7cb690410 100644 --- a/public/policy-debate/index.html +++ b/public/policy-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Policy Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

Policy Debate Prep with AI

Build plans, DAs, counterplans, and kritik prep blocks for CX debate.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Plan and advantage writing

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

DA and counterplan prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Topicality and kritik blocks

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Plan and advantage writing

DA and counterplan prep

Topicality and kritik blocks

How policy debate works

Policy debate asks whether a plan should be adopted. Prep involves plans, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, topicality, and kritiks.

DebateLab helps you draft and attack each component.

Researching DAs and counterplans

Use DebateLab to find potential disadvantages, test counterplan competition, and build blocks for common DA scenarios.

Kritik and theory prep

Kritiks challenge assumptions behind the opponent's framework. DebateLab can help you brainstorm kritik arguments and theory blocks.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/public-forum-debate/index.html b/public/public-forum-debate/index.html index 7bf145f86..424f384da 100644 --- a/public/public-forum-debate/index.html +++ b/public/public-forum-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / Public Forum Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI

Practice PF cases, rebuttals, crossfire, summary, and final focus with AI feedback.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

PF case building

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Crossfire prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Summary and final focus

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

PF case building

Crossfire prep

Summary and final focus

How PF cases work

A PF case has two contentions, each with a claim, warrant, impact, and evidence. The strongest cases also include pre-emption and weighing from the constructive.

DebateLab helps you draft, attack, and refine PF cases before the round.

Crossfire and rebuttal practice

Crossfire exposes weak warrants and missing evidence. Use DebateLab to generate likely crossfire questions and practice ten-second rebuttal blocks.

Summary and final focus

The best summaries collapse to the winning argument. Practice selecting the right clash and framing the ballot for the judge.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/world-schools-debate/index.html b/public/world-schools-debate/index.html index 8b96d18cc..a4a32baee 100644 --- a/public/world-schools-debate/index.html +++ b/public/world-schools-debate/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / World Schools Debate Prep with AI
Format guide

World Schools Debate Prep with AI

Practice WSDC motions, burdens, POIs, and reply speech framing.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Motion interpretation

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Burden analysis

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Reply speech practice

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Motion interpretation

Burden analysis

Reply speech practice

Motion interpretation

WSDC motions are broad. Define the model carefully, identify stakeholders, and clarify what each side must prove before writing speeches.

Team roles in WSDC

First speaker sets up, second speaker extends, third speaker weighs and rebuts, reply speaker frames the ballot. Practice each role with DebateLab.

POIs and reply speeches

POIs test warrants under pressure. Reply speeches summarize the round without new arguments. Practice both to improve your WSDC prep.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/public/wsdc-debate-practice/index.html b/public/wsdc-debate-practice/index.html index 6a2fb8f71..63d0b3c02 100644 --- a/public/wsdc-debate-practice/index.html +++ b/public/wsdc-debate-practice/index.html @@ -15,14 +15,14 @@ - +
DebateLab / WSDC Debate Practice With AI Drills
Format guide

WSDC Debate Practice With AI Drills

Prepare motions, burdens, speeches, POIs, rebuttals, and weighing for World Schools style debates.

Start practicingSee DebateLab
-

Motion prep

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

POI practice

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

Team line checks

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

+

Motion prep

POI practice

Team line checks

WSDC prep starts with the motion

Define the model, burdens, stakeholders, and clashes before writing speeches. The strongest prep starts with clear framing.

Practice team roles

Use DebateLab to draft first speaker setup, second speaker extensions, third speaker rebuttal, and reply speech framing.

Train POIs and weighing

Points of information expose weak warrants. DebateLab can help generate likely POIs and compare impacts before practice rounds.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator diff --git a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py index 8c8612457..e3eafe42c 100644 --- a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py +++ b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py @@ -2,24 +2,33 @@ from pathlib import Path import html import json +import sys + +sys.dont_write_bytecode = True # keep scripts/__pycache__ out of the tree +from seo_guides import GUIDES # noqa: E402 ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parents[1] PUBLIC = ROOT / "public" -BASE = "https://debate.pi-stack.org" -BRAND = "DebateLab by Pi-Stack" +# Brand and domain strings come from src/config/site.json, shared with the app +# and the build scripts. Page copy names the product with {product}. +SITE = json.loads((ROOT / "src" / "config" / "site.json").read_text()) +BASE = SITE["origin"] +BRAND = SITE["brand"] +PRODUCT = SITE["product"] +ORGANIZATION = SITE["organization"] # The date the page text last changed. The build reads it into sitemap.xml as # , so bump it only when the copy changes, not on every regeneration. -CONTENT_DATE = "2026-07-06" +CONTENT_DATE = "2026-10-18" CSS = """ :root{color-scheme:dark;--bg:#070a12;--panel:#101827;--text:#f8fafc;--muted:#b6c2d6;--brand:#7c5cff;--brand2:#22d3ee;--line:rgba(255,255,255,.14)}*{box-sizing:border-box}body{margin:0;background:radial-gradient(circle at 18% 8%,rgba(124,92,255,.30),transparent 34rem),radial-gradient(circle at 85% 18%,rgba(34,211,238,.18),transparent 28rem),var(--bg);color:var(--text);font-family:ui-sans-serif,system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",sans-serif;line-height:1.65}a{color:inherit}.wrap{width:min(1120px,92vw);margin:auto}.nav{display:flex;justify-content:space-between;align-items:center;gap:18px;padding:24px 0}.brand{font-weight:850;letter-spacing:-.04em;font-size:1.25rem;text-decoration:none}.nav div{display:flex;gap:18px;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:flex-end}.nav a{color:var(--muted);text-decoration:none}.hero{padding:54px 0 34px}.eyebrow{display:inline-flex;border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:999px;padding:8px 12px;color:#c4b5fd;background:rgba(124,92,255,.12);font-size:.92rem}.hero h1{max-width:940px;font-size:clamp(2.35rem,6vw,5.15rem);line-height:1;letter-spacing:-.07em;margin:22px 0}.lead{max-width:800px;color:var(--muted);font-size:clamp(1.08rem,1.8vw,1.28rem)}.cta{display:flex;gap:14px;flex-wrap:wrap;margin-top:28px}.btn{display:inline-flex;align-items:center;justify-content:center;border-radius:14px;padding:14px 20px;font-weight:750;text-decoration:none}.primary{background:linear-gradient(135deg,var(--brand),var(--brand2));color:white}.secondary{border:1px solid var(--line);background:rgba(255,255,255,.06)}.grid{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(3,1fr);gap:18px;margin:34px 0}.card{border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:24px;background:rgba(16,24,39,.78);padding:24px;box-shadow:0 24px 80px rgba(0,0,0,.24)}.card h2,.card h3{letter-spacing:-.035em;line-height:1.12;margin-top:0}.muted{color:var(--muted)}.section{padding:34px 0}.article{max-width:840px}.article h2{font-size:clamp(1.65rem,3vw,2.35rem);letter-spacing:-.04em;line-height:1.14;margin-top:2rem}.article h3{font-size:1.2rem;letter-spacing:-.025em}.links{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(2,1fr);gap:12px;margin:28px 0}.links a{border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:16px;padding:14px;text-decoration:none;background:rgba(255,255,255,.05)}details{border:1px solid var(--line);border-radius:18px;padding:16px 18px;margin:12px 0;background:rgba(255,255,255,.05)}summary{cursor:pointer;font-weight:750}.footer{border-top:1px solid var(--line);color:var(--muted);padding:28px 0;margin-top:42px}.breadcrumb{color:var(--muted);font-size:.94rem;margin-top:8px}@media(max-width:760px){.nav{align-items:flex-start;flex-direction:column}.nav div{justify-content:flex-start}.grid,.links{grid-template-columns:1fr}.hero{padding-top:34px}.hero h1{letter-spacing:-.045em}} """.strip() PAGES = [ - {"slug":"ai-debate-practice","title":"AI Debate Practice Platform | DebateLab","description":"Practice debate online with DebateLab: AI opponents, targeted drills, rebuttal feedback, evidence research, argument flowcharts, and tournament-ready prep tools.","eyebrow":"DebateLab guide","h1":"AI Debate Practice for Stronger Cases, Rebuttals, and Speeches","lead":"Use a focused debate workspace for cases, rebuttals, sources, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice.","features":["Practice against AI opponents","Turn feedback into drills","Keep private prep out of search"],"sections":[("Why AI debate practice needs structure",["Good practice is not just asking a chatbot for arguments. Debaters need claims, warrants, impacts, weighing, evidence, and responses that fit their format.","DebateLab connects the workflow: generate a case, attack it, gather sources, map clash, ask for coaching, and practice before the round starts."]),("What to practice before a round",["Start by writing the motion in plain language. Identify each side's burdens, likely clashes, and the judge questions that decide the round.","Use AI debate practice to stress-test the weakest link: a missing warrant, overclaimed impact, weak comparative, or rebuttal that answers the wrong issue."]),("How DebateLab helps",["Public guides explain the product clearly while saved cases, history, and private dashboards stay protected behind login."])]}, + {"slug": "ai-debate-practice", "title": "AI Debate Practice Platform | {product}", "description": "Practice debate online with {product}: AI opponents, targeted drills, rebuttal feedback, evidence research, argument flowcharts, and tournament-ready prep tools.", "eyebrow": "{product} guide", "h1": "AI Debate Practice for Stronger Cases, Rebuttals, and Speeches", "lead": "Use a focused debate workspace for cases, rebuttals, sources, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice."}, {"slug":"debate-case-generator","title":"AI Debate Case Generator | DebateLab","description":"Generate structured debate cases with claims, warrants, impacts, counters, and evidence suggestions for any motion or side using DebateLab.","eyebrow":"Feature guide","h1":"Generate Structured Debate Cases in Minutes","lead":"Create a starting structure you can improve, verify, and adapt for your format.","features":["Claims and warrants","Impacts and weighing","Counters and prep notes"],"sections":[("What a useful debate case includes",["A strong case separates claims from warrants and impacts. It also makes weighing explicit so the judge knows why your argument matters more.","DebateLab helps turn a motion into contentions, reasoning chains, counters, and prep notes instead of a flat paragraph of generic arguments."]),("Use generated cases responsibly",["Generated cases are drafts. The best workflow is to generate structure, check assumptions, add verified evidence, and then practice attacking the case yourself."]),("From draft to round strategy",["Once the case exists, the real question is what the other side can exploit. Use DebateLab to find weak warrants, missing examples, and impact comparisons."])]}, - {"slug":"debate-rebuttal-practice","title":"Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer | DebateLab","description":"Practice rebuttals with DebateLab. Analyze arguments, find weak warrants, missing weighing, logical gaps, and cross-examination traps before your round.","eyebrow":"Feature guide","h1":"Practice Rebuttals Before Your Opponent Finds the Weakness","lead":"Choose the link to attack, explain why it matters, and turn pressure into round-winning collapse.","features":["Find weak warrants","Build targeted blocks","Practice weighing and collapse"],"sections":[("What makes a rebuttal effective",["A good rebuttal does not answer every sentence. It attacks the part of the argument that matters: warrant, evidence quality, internal link, impact, or weighing comparison.","DebateLab helps identify those pressure points so your prep produces sharper responses."]),("Train with your own cases",["Paste a case, speech, or contention and ask what a strong opponent would attack. Then build blocks that answer the most likely objections."]),("Use cross-examination as a weapon",["Weak warrants often become strong cross-examination questions. DebateLab can help turn hidden assumptions into questions that expose the other side's burden."])]}, - {"slug":"ai-debate-coach","title":"AI Debate Coach for Strategy, Structure & Practice | DebateLab","description":"Ask DebateLab's AI debate coach for help with strategy, argument structure, weighing, rebuttals, speeches, prep questions, and practice feedback.","eyebrow":"Feature guide","h1":"Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep","lead":"Get focused help with strategy, structure, weighing, rebuttals, speeches, and practice feedback.","features":["Strategy help","Speech structure","Practice feedback"],"sections":[("What an AI debate coach should do",["The useful coach asks what the round is about, what side you are on, what your burden is, and what the judge needs to compare.","DebateLab supports strategy, structure, weighing, rebuttals, and speech practice rather than generic essay writing."]),("Use coaching to improve faster",["After a practice speech, ask what was unclear, what was under-warranted, and what should become the collapse. Then repeat with a narrower drill."]),("Public guidance, private workspace",["Coaching explanations can be public and indexable. Your saved cases, history, and private prep remain protected behind login."])]}, + {"slug": "debate-rebuttal-practice", "title": "Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer | {product}", "description": "Practice rebuttals with {product}. Analyze arguments, find weak warrants, missing weighing, logical gaps, and cross-examination traps before your round.", "eyebrow": "Feature guide", "h1": "Practice Rebuttals Before Your Opponent Finds the Weakness", "lead": "Choose the link to attack, explain why it matters, and turn pressure into round-winning collapse."}, + {"slug": "ai-debate-coach", "title": "AI Debate Coach for Strategy, Structure & Practice | {product}", "description": "Ask {product}'s AI debate coach for help with strategy, argument structure, weighing, rebuttals, speeches, prep questions, and practice feedback.", "eyebrow": "Feature guide", "h1": "Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep", "lead": "Get focused help with strategy, structure, weighing, rebuttals, speeches, and practice feedback."}, {"slug":"debate-evidence-finder","title":"Debate Evidence Finder for Source-Backed Cases | DebateLab","description":"Find evidence leads for debate cases with DebateLab, then verify original sources, citations, warrants, and impact links before using them in round.","eyebrow":"Research workflow","h1":"Find Better Debate Evidence Without Losing the Argument","lead":"Use AI to locate research directions, then verify sources and connect evidence to warrants.","features":["Evidence leads","Citation checks","Impact links"],"sections":[("Evidence is not the argument",["Cards win rounds only when they support a clear warrant. A source should answer a burden, not decorate a speech.","DebateLab helps move from a claim to research leads, source checks, and the impact comparison the judge must evaluate."]),("Verify before you read it aloud",["Open the original source, check date and author, confirm the quote, and explain why the evidence proves your link. Never rely on an AI summary alone."]),("Connect research to clash",["The best evidence pages are tied to specific clashes: solvency, harms, tradeoffs, comparative examples, and weighing."])]}, {"slug":"argument-flowchart","title":"Argument Flowchart Tool for Debate Prep | DebateLab","description":"Map debate arguments, clash, links, impacts, and weighing with DebateLab's argument flowchart workflow for clearer speeches and rebuttals.","eyebrow":"Flowing guide","h1":"Map the Clash With an Argument Flowchart","lead":"Turn cases and rebuttals into a visual map of claims, warrants, impacts, and weighing.","features":["Visual clash maps","Link chains","Weighing notes"],"sections":[("Why flowcharts help debaters",["Debate rounds become messy fast. A flowchart keeps the important relationships visible: what claim depends on which warrant, where the clash sits, and what impact comparison matters."]),("Build from the motion outward",["Start with burdens, add each contention, then connect evidence and rebuttals. If a link is missing, the map makes the gap obvious."]),("Use the map for speeches",["Before speaking, choose the path that wins the round. A good flowchart helps you collapse instead of spreading yourself thin."])]}, {"slug":"online-debate-timer","title":"Online Debate Timer for Practice Rounds | DebateLab","description":"Use DebateLab as an online debate timer for speech practice, prep drills, rebuttal timing, and tournament-ready pacing across formats.","eyebrow":"Practice tool","h1":"Practice With an Online Debate Timer","lead":"Train pacing, prep discipline, and speech structure before the round starts.","features":["Speech timing","Prep drills","Pacing feedback"],"sections":[("Timing changes strategy",["A great argument can still lose if it arrives too late or takes too long. Timed practice forces you to pick the strongest material."]),("Drill one skill at a time",["Use short timers for rebuttal blocks, longer timers for full speeches, and prep timers to simulate tournament pressure."]),("Pair timing with feedback",["After each timed speech, use DebateLab to identify unclear structure, missing weighing, and the next drill to repeat."])]}, @@ -39,7 +48,7 @@ {"slug": "how-to-cross-examine-in-debate", "title": "How to Cross-Examine in Debate | DebateLab Guide", "description": "Learn how to cross-examine in debate with targeted questions that expose weak warrants, missing evidence, flawed logic, and unsupported impacts.", "eyebrow": "How-to guide", "h1": "How to Cross-Examine in Debate", "lead": "Ask questions that expose assumptions, not questions that let the opponent talk.", "features": ["Leading questions", "Warrant exposure", "Time management"], "sections": [["The goal of cross-examination", ["Cross-ex is not a speech. It is a tool to expose weaknesses. Ask leading questions that force concessions or reveal unsupported claims."]], ["Common cross-ex mistakes", ["Asking open-ended questions, arguing instead of questioning, and running out of time without making a point are the most common errors."]], ["How to use cross-ex in your speech", ["Take the concessions from cross-ex and use them in your rebuttal. If the opponent admitted the warrant is weak, remind the judge."]]]}, {"slug": "how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament", "title": "How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament | DebateLab Guide", "description": "Learn how to prepare for a debate tournament: topic research, case writing, rebuttal blocks, speech timing, and tournament-day strategy.", "eyebrow": "How-to guide", "h1": "How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament", "lead": "From topic release to tournament day, build a prep system that works.", "features": ["Topic research", "Block files", "Tournament-day checklist"], "sections": [["Topic research workflow", ["Start with topic analysis, identify key clashes, research both sides, and build case templates. DebateLab helps you move from topic to structured prep."]], ["Building block files", ["Block files are pre-written responses to common arguments. Use DebateLab to brainstorm likely arguments and prepare blocks before the tournament."]], ["Tournament day checklist", ["Bring extra pens, backup evidence, water, snacks, a timer, and a plan for each round. Mental stamina matters as much as preparation."]]]}, {"slug": "how-to-flow-in-debate", "title": "How to Flow in Debate | DebateLab Guide", "description": "Learn how to flow in debate: track arguments, map clash, visualize links and impacts, and use your flow to write better speeches and rebuttals.", "eyebrow": "How-to guide", "h1": "How to Flow in Debate", "lead": "Flowing is the skill that separates good debaters from great ones.", "features": ["Argument tracking", "Clash mapping", "Speech organization"], "sections": [["Why flowing matters", ["If you cannot see the argument structure, you cannot respond strategically. Flowing keeps the full round visible on one page."]], ["How to flow efficiently", ["Use columns for each speech, abbreviate claims and warrants, track the flow of arguments across speeches, and mark dropped arguments."]], ["Using your flow in speeches", ["Before you speak, look at the flow and decide which clashes you must win. Your speech should trace the flow, not introduce random new arguments."]]]}, - {"slug": "ai-debate-case-generator", "title": "AI Debate Case Generator with Citations | DebateLab", "description": "Use an AI debate case generator to draft structured cases with claims, warrants, impacts, and evidence leads, then verify sources before round.", "eyebrow": "Tool guide", "h1": "AI Debate Case Generator with Citations", "lead": "Draft faster, verify carefully, and walk into the round with a structured case.", "features": ["Structured case drafts", "Evidence leads", "Format templates"], "sections": [["What an AI case generator should do", ["A good case generator does not write your case for you. It gives you structure: claims, warrants, impacts, and research leads that you verify and adapt."]], ["Citation and evidence workflows", ["Generated evidence leads are starting points, not final cards. Always check the original source, confirm the quote, and make sure the evidence supports your link."]], ["How DebateLab's case generator works", ["DebateLab generates structured draft cases that you can attack, refine, and prepare. The private workspace holds your saved cases and history."]]]}, + {"slug": "ai-debate-case-generator", "title": "AI Debate Case Generator with Citations | {product}", "description": "Use an AI debate case generator to draft structured cases with claims, warrants, impacts, and evidence leads, then verify sources before round.", "eyebrow": "Tool guide", "h1": "AI Debate Case Generator with Citations", "lead": "Draft faster, verify carefully, and walk into the round with a structured case."}, {"slug": "ai-rebuttal-generator", "title": "AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate | DebateLab", "description": "Use an AI rebuttal generator to find weak warrants, build targeted blocks, and practice responses to common debate arguments.", "eyebrow": "Tool guide", "h1": "AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate", "lead": "Find the weak link, build the block, and practice the response.", "features": ["Weak warrant detection", "Block building", "Response practice"], "sections": [["What an AI rebuttal generator should do", ["A useful tool points you to the weakest part of the opponent's argument and helps you build a targeted response, not a generic counter-narrative."]], ["How to use generated rebuttals", ["Take the generated block, adapt it to the specific argument, and practice saying it under time. The best rebuttals are concise and repeated."]], ["Pair with cross-ex", ["If your rebuttal attacks a warrant, your cross-ex should force the opponent to defend or abandon that warrant. Practice both with DebateLab."]]]}, {"slug": "ai-debate-evidence-research", "title": "AI Debate Evidence Research Tool | DebateLab", "description": "Use AI to find debate evidence leads: source suggestions, citation directions, and impact links for your case without replacing original source verification.", "eyebrow": "Tool guide", "h1": "AI Debate Evidence Research Tool", "lead": "Use AI for research directions, not as a replacement for reading sources.", "features": ["Source suggestions", "Citation direction", "Impact linking"], "sections": [["AI research is a starting point", ["AI can suggest where to look: which journals, news sources, and reports might support your link. But you must open and verify the actual source."]], ["How to verify evidence", ["Check author credentials, publication date, methodology, and whether the quote is in context. A card that misrepresents the source will hurt you in cross-ex."]], ["Linking evidence to arguments", ["Evidence is not self-explanatory. You must explain how it supports your warrant and impact. DebateLab helps connect research to clash."]]]}, {"slug": "debate-argument-flowchart-tool", "title": "Debate Argument Flowchart Tool | DebateLab", "description": "Use DebateLab's argument flowchart tool to map claims, warrants, impacts, clash, and weighing for clearer speeches and rebuttals.", "eyebrow": "Tool guide", "h1": "Debate Argument Flowchart Tool", "lead": "Visualize the round before you speak with a clash map.", "features": ["Visual clash mapping", "Link and impact tracking", "Weighing notes"], "sections": [["Why a flowchart helps", ["Arguments are chains. If one link breaks, the whole contention falls. A flowchart makes the chain visible so you can see where to attack."]], ["How to build a flowchart", ["Start with the motion, add each contention, connect evidence and rebuttals, and mark weighing at each clash point."]], ["Use the map in round", ["A good flowchart helps you decide what to collapse to, what to drop, and what to extend. Practice with DebateLab."]]]}, @@ -59,7 +68,7 @@ {"slug": "debate-evidence-verification", "title": "Debate Evidence Verification Guide | DebateLab", "description": "Learn how to verify debate evidence: check sources, confirm quotes, evaluate methodology, and avoid misrepresentation in your cards.", "eyebrow": "Guide", "h1": "Debate Evidence Verification Guide", "lead": "A bad card is worse than no card. Verify every source before you read it in round.", "features": ["Source checking", "Quote confirmation", "Methodology evaluation"], "sections": [["Why verification matters", ["If your evidence is challenged and found wanting, your credibility is gone. A verified card is a weapon; an unverified one is a liability."]], ["How to verify evidence", ["Check the author, publication date, methodology, sample size, and context of the quote. Make sure it actually says what you claim it says."]], ["What to do if evidence is weak", ["Do not read it. Find a better source, or make the argument analytically without relying on a weak card."]]]}, {"slug": "debate-pronunciation-and-delivery", "title": "Debate Speech Delivery and Pronunciation Guide | DebateLab", "description": "Improve your debate speech delivery with tips on clarity, pacing, emphasis, pronunciation, and using pauses for judge-friendly presentations.", "eyebrow": "Delivery guide", "h1": "Debate Speech Delivery and Pronunciation Guide", "lead": "Clear delivery makes your arguments land. Slow down, emphasize key words, and pause where it matters.", "features": ["Clarity and pacing", "Emphasis techniques", "Pause strategy"], "sections": [["Why delivery matters", ["The judge cannot vote for an argument they did not hear clearly. Speed without clarity is wasted effort."]], ["How to improve delivery", ["Slow down on tags and author names, pause between contentions, and emphasize weighing phrases. Practice with a timer and record yourself."]], ["Common delivery problems", ["Speaking too fast, mumbling, monotone delivery, and forgetting to pause. Each of these can cost you rounds even with strong arguments."]]]}, {"slug": "debate-note-taking-flowing", "title": "Debate Note Taking and Flowing Guide | DebateLab", "description": "Learn debate note taking and flowing techniques: column structure, abbreviations, dropped argument tracking, and speech organization.", "eyebrow": "Guide", "h1": "Debate Note Taking and Flowing Guide", "lead": "Flowing is debate literacy. Learn it, practice it, and use it in every round.", "features": ["Column structure", "Abbreviation systems", "Dropped argument tracking"], "sections": [["Why flowing is essential", ["If you cannot track the round, you cannot respond strategically. Flowing is the foundation of competitive debate."]], ["How to structure your flow", ["Use columns for each speech: affirmative constructive, negative constructive, affirmative rebuttal, negative rebuttal. Track arguments across columns."]], ["Tracking dropped arguments", ["Mark dropped arguments immediately. A dropped argument is a concession, and concessions win rounds."]]]}, - {"slug": "best-ai-debate-tools", "title": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared | DebateLab", "description": "Compare the best AI debate tools for case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence research, flowcharts, coaching, and tournament preparation.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared", "lead": "See how AI debate tools compare on features, formats, and prep workflows.", "features": ["Feature comparison", "Format coverage", "Workflow differences"], "sections": [["What to look for in an AI debate tool", ["Good tools provide structure, not just text. They support case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence leads, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice."]], ["How DebateLab compares", ["DebateLab combines multiple prep workflows in one workspace. Other tools may focus on voice debating, research, or specific formats."]], ["Choosing the right tool", ["Pick the tool that matches your format, your prep style, and your tournament schedule. Trial options help you test before committing."]]]}, + {"slug": "best-ai-debate-tools", "title": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared | {product}", "description": "Compare the best AI debate tools for case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence research, flowcharts, coaching, and tournament preparation.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared", "lead": "See how AI debate tools compare on features, formats, and prep workflows."}, {"slug": "debatelab-alternatives", "title": "DebateLab Alternatives and Competitors | DebateLab", "description": "Compare DebateLab alternatives: AI debate platforms, case generators, rebuttal tools, evidence research, flowchart tools, and practice timers.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "DebateLab Alternatives and Competitors", "lead": "See how other AI debate tools compare, and what makes DebateLab different.", "features": ["Tool comparison", "Feature differences", "Workflow coverage"], "sections": [["Why people search for DebateLab alternatives", ["Debaters compare tools to find the best fit for their format, budget, and prep style. This page helps you compare honestly."]], ["What makes DebateLab different", ["DebateLab focuses on structured prep workflows rather than just chatting with an AI. It supports cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing."]], ["How to compare tools fairly", ["Look at format coverage, feature depth, feedback quality, pricing transparency, and whether the tool supports your actual tournament workflow."]]]}, {"slug": "debatelab-pricing", "title": "DebateLab Pricing and Plans | DebateLab", "description": "DebateLab pricing and plans for AI debate practice: free trial, Pro features, and what is included for students and competitive debaters.", "eyebrow": "Pricing", "h1": "DebateLab Pricing and Plans", "lead": "See what DebateLab offers and how to get started with AI debate practice.", "features": ["Free trial", "Pro features", "Student plans"], "sections": [["DebateLab trial", ["DebateLab offers a trial so users can explore case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence leads, flowcharts, coaching, and timing before subscribing."]], ["What Pro includes", ["Pro features include extended AI usage, saved cases, private history, and advanced practice workflows. Check the app for current pricing."]], ["How to decide if DebateLab is worth it", ["If you debate regularly and need structured prep, DebateLab saves time and improves quality. The trial lets you test the workflow before paying."]]]}, {"slug": "debatelab-vs-chatgpt", "title": "DebateLab vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep | DebateLab", "description": "Compare DebateLab vs ChatGPT for debate prep: structured workflows vs generic chat, evidence research, rebuttal drills, case generation, and coaching.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "DebateLab vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep", "lead": "ChatGPT is a general chatbot. DebateLab is a debate practice workspace.", "features": ["Structured workflows", "Evidence leads", "Practice tools"], "sections": [["What ChatGPT does well", ["ChatGPT is a flexible general-purpose AI. It can brainstorm, draft, and answer questions about any topic, including debate."]], ["What DebateLab does differently", ["DebateLab is designed for debate prep workflows: case structure, targeted rebuttals, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and timed practice. Each workflow supports a specific prep task."]], ["When to use each", ["Use ChatGPT for general brainstorming and research. Use DebateLab for structured, repeatable debate practice that mirrors what you do in a round."]]]}, @@ -68,11 +77,26 @@ ] FAQS = [ - ("Is DebateLab an AI debate practice platform?", "Yes. DebateLab focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing."), - ("Can Google index private DebateLab app pages?", "No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context."), + ("Is {product} an AI debate practice platform?", "Yes. {product} focuses on debate prep workflows such as cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timing."), + ("Can Google index private {product} app pages?", "No. Private dashboards and account routes should remain noindexed while public guides provide crawlable context."), ("Should students verify AI-generated debate evidence?", "Yes. AI can suggest research leads, but students should check original sources before using evidence in round."), ] +def fill(value): + """Replaces the {product} token in page copy with the configured product name.""" + if isinstance(value, str): + return value.replace("{product}", PRODUCT) + if isinstance(value, dict): + return {key: fill(item) for key, item in value.items()} + if isinstance(value, (list, tuple)): + return type(value)(fill(item) for item in value) + return value + +# Long-form guides replace a page's features and sections and add its own FAQs. +# Merging by slug keeps PAGES in order, which internal_links() depends on. +PAGES = [fill({**page, **GUIDES.get(page["slug"], {})}) for page in PAGES] +FAQS = fill(FAQS) + NAV = [("AI practice","/ai-debate-practice"),("Case generator","/debate-case-generator"),("Rebuttal practice","/debate-rebuttal-practice"),("Evidence finder","/debate-evidence-finder"),("Open app","/app")] def page_url(slug): @@ -82,22 +106,43 @@ def esc(s): return html.escape(s, quote=True) def internal_links(current): - links = [(p["title"].replace(" | DebateLab", "").replace(" | DebateLab Guide", ""), "/" + p["slug"]) for p in PAGES if p["slug"] != current] + links = [(p["title"].replace(f" | {PRODUCT}", "").replace(f" | {PRODUCT} Guide", ""), "/" + p["slug"]) for p in PAGES if p["slug"] != current] chosen = links[:8] if current in [p["slug"] for p in PAGES[:8]]: chosen = links[8:16] return "\n".join(f'{esc(label)}' for label, href in chosen[:8]) +def feature_card(feature): + """A highlight card: a title, or a (title, description) pair.""" + if isinstance(feature, str): + return f'

{esc(feature)}

' + title, description = feature + return f'

{esc(title)}

{esc(description)}

' + +def render_block(block): + """A paragraph string, or a dict holding one of h3, steps, list or example.""" + if isinstance(block, str): + return f"

{esc(block)}

" + if "h3" in block: + return f"

{esc(block['h3'])}

" + if "steps" in block: + return "
    " + "".join(f"
  1. {esc(item)}
    2. " for item in block["steps"]) + "
" + if "list" in block: + return "
    " + "".join(f"
  • {esc(item)}
    • " for item in block["list"]) + "
" + example = block["example"] + rows = "".join(f"

{esc(label)} {esc(text)}

" for label, text in example["rows"]) + return f'

{esc(example["title"])}

{rows}
' + def render_page(page): - feature_cards = "".join(f'

{esc(feature)}

A crawlable overview of a DebateLab workflow that opens into the private app.

' for feature in page["features"]) + feature_cards = "".join(feature_card(feature) for feature in page["features"]) article = [] - for heading, paragraphs in page["sections"]: + for heading, blocks in page["sections"]: article.append(f"

{esc(heading)}

") - for paragraph in paragraphs: - article.append(f"

{esc(paragraph)}

") - faq_html = "".join(f"
{esc(q)}

{esc(a)}

" for q, a in FAQS) + article.extend(render_block(block) for block in blocks) + faqs = page.get("faqs", FAQS) + faq_html = "".join(f"
{esc(q)}

{esc(a)}

" for q, a in faqs) nav = "".join(f'{esc(label)}' for label, href in NAV) - json_ld = json.dumps({"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","headline":page["h1"],"name":page["title"],"url":page_url(page["slug"]),"description":page["description"],"dateModified":CONTENT_DATE,"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","@id":BASE + "/#organization","name":"Pi-Stack","url":BASE + "/"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":q,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":a}} for q,a in FAQS]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":BRAND,"item":BASE + "/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":page["h1"],"item":page_url(page["slug"])}]}]}, separators=(",", ":")) + json_ld = json.dumps({"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","headline":page["h1"],"name":page["title"],"url":page_url(page["slug"]),"description":page["description"],"dateModified":CONTENT_DATE,"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","@id":BASE + "/#organization","name":ORGANIZATION,"url":BASE + "/"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":q,"acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":a}} for q,a in faqs]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":BRAND,"item":BASE + "/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":page["h1"],"item":page_url(page["slug"])}]}]}, separators=(",", ":")) return f''' @@ -120,11 +165,11 @@ def render_page(page):
-
DebateLab / {esc(page["h1"])}
-
{esc(page["eyebrow"])}

{esc(page["h1"])}

{esc(page["lead"])}

Start practicingSee DebateLab
+
{PRODUCT} / {esc(page["h1"])}
+
{esc(page["eyebrow"])}

{esc(page["h1"])}

{esc(page["lead"])}

Start practicingSee {PRODUCT}
{feature_cards}
{"".join(article)}
-

Related DebateLab guides

{internal_links(page["slug"])}
+

Related {PRODUCT} guides

{internal_links(page["slug"])}

Frequently asked questions

{faq_html}
diff --git a/scripts/prerender.mjs b/scripts/prerender.mjs index a9ce3fd1b..7107b2a73 100644 --- a/scripts/prerender.mjs +++ b/scripts/prerender.mjs @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import { dirname, join } from 'node:path'; import { createServer } from 'vite'; const DIST = 'dist'; -const SITE_ORIGIN = 'https://debate.pi-stack.org'; +const SITE_ORIGIN = JSON.parse(readFileSync('src/config/site.json', 'utf8')).origin; // The landing page's lastmod is the last commit that changed these. const LANDING_SOURCES = ['src/pages/LandingPage.tsx', 'src/components/landing', 'src/lib/seo/pages.ts']; diff --git a/scripts/seo_guides.py b/scripts/seo_guides.py new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a09db8433 --- /dev/null +++ b/scripts/seo_guides.py @@ -0,0 +1,367 @@ +"""Long-form copy for the guide pages that have their own content. + +generate_seo_content.py merges each entry over the PAGES item with the same +slug. Name the product with {product}; the generator fills it from +src/config/site.json. A section is (heading, blocks), where a block is a +paragraph string or a dict with one of: h3, steps, list, example. +""" + +GUIDES = { + "ai-debate-practice": { + "features": [ + ("Practice against AI opponents", "Run a full Sparring round in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum, type or speak each speech, and finish with a judged verdict."), + ("Turn feedback into drills", "Take the weakest point from a verdict or a Crossfire debrief, rebuild it with Attack or Ask, and run that speech again."), + ("Keep private prep out of search", "Cases, sources, rounds and history stay inside your Current Debate behind sign-in. Only these public guides are indexed."), + ], + "sections": [ + ("What a useful AI practice session looks like", [ + "Most debaters improve through repetitions with feedback: give a speech, find out what failed, fix one thing, give it again. AI practice is valuable when it shortens that loop, not when it hands you a finished speech to read.", + "A chat window can produce arguments on request, but it does not hold a round together. It forgets which side you are on, does not time you, and rarely tells you which of your points the judge would have dropped. Practice needs a motion, a side, a format with real speech times, an opponent that responds to what you actually said, and a verdict that names the reason you lost or won.", + "{product} is built around that loop. You start a Current Debate for one motion, and every case, source, round and debrief you create stays filed under it. That means the AI opponent in your third practice round can see the same Library sources you used to write your case, and your History shows how the debate developed across sessions.", + ]), + ("A 45-minute practice session, step by step", [ + "This plan fits a weeknight. It assumes you have a motion but no case yet.", + {"steps": [ + "Start a Current Debate with the motion written exactly as it will be announced (2 minutes). Add any articles or notes you already trust to the Library so later answers are grounded in them.", + "Run Brainstorm on the motion and pick the two or three angles you can explain in one sentence each (5 minutes). Discard angles that need evidence you do not have.", + "Generate a case for your side (10 minutes). Read the predicted opponent case before your own contentions: it tells you what you will have to answer.", + "Run a Sparring round in your format (15 minutes). Give every speech in full, at time, without pausing to edit. Voice mode lets you speak instead of type.", + "Read the verdict and write down the single reason it gives for the decision (3 minutes).", + "Rebuild only that part (5 minutes): ask Attack to stress-test the rewritten argument, or regenerate the one case section that failed.", + "Give the rebuilt speech again against the timer (5 minutes). Compare it with the first attempt.", + ]}, + "The discipline is in step six. Fixing one problem per session sticks; rewriting the whole case after every round mostly produces new problems.", + ]), + ("Worked example: one practice round", [ + {"example": {"title": "Motion: This house would ban smartphones in secondary schools", "rows": [ + ("Side and format:", "Proposition, run as a School 4-6-6-3 Sparring round."), + ("First contention:", "Phones fragment attention in class, and attention is the input every other kind of learning depends on."), + ("AI opponent's response:", "Schools already confiscate phones during lessons, so a ban changes only break times, where the harm you described does not happen."), + ("What the verdict flagged:", "Proposition never explained what a ban adds over existing classroom rules, so the opposition's mitigation stood unanswered."), + ("The drill:", "Ask Attack to find the gap in the contention, then rewrite it around breaks: social exclusion, cyberbullying during the school day, and the cost of teachers enforcing rules lesson by lesson."), + ("Second attempt:", "The R1 speech now opens with the comparison: classroom rules depend on every teacher enforcing them every hour, while a ban sets one rule at the school gate. The opponent's mitigation becomes a point in your favour."), + ]}}, + "The example shows the pattern to look for. The first version was not wrong; it was incomplete in a way only a responsive opponent exposes. That is the gap AI practice fills between team practices.", + ]), + ("Format-specific practice tips", [ + {"h3": "World Schools (WSDC)"}, + "WSDC rounds reward a consistent team line, so practise as a team even when you use AI. Agree the line in one sentence, then have each speaker run their own section against the AI and check that the line survives. Points of Information matter in every substantive speech: use Crossfire with the AI asking the questions to rehearse taking a POI, answering in under fifteen seconds, and returning to your structure. Sparring does not run a WSDC round, so time the eight-minute substantives and four-minute reply yourself.", + {"h3": "British Parliamentary (BP)"}, + "In BP, two teams on each bench compete with each other as well as with the other side. Practise both halves. For opening, generate a case with the format set to British Parliamentary and drill a clear definition and model in the first two minutes. For closing, take an opening case you have already generated and practise finding an extension it does not contain, then deliver it in seven minutes without repeating opening material.", + {"h3": "Public Forum (PF)"}, + "Sparring runs Public Forum with four-minute constructives and rebuttals, three-minute summaries and two-minute final focuses. Use the round to practise the hardest skill in PF: keeping summary and final focus consistent. Before each summary, write the two issues you will collapse on, and check after the round whether your final focus extended exactly those issues and nothing new.", + {"h3": "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)"}, + "The Lincoln-Douglas round follows the standard times: six-minute affirmative constructive, seven-minute negative constructive, four-minute first affirmative rebuttal, six-minute negative rebuttal and three-minute second affirmative rebuttal. The 1AR is where most affirmatives lose. Run it repeatedly against the same negative constructive and practise grouping responses and cross-applying your framework, so four minutes covers seven.", + ]), + ("How to tell whether practice is working", [ + "Keep a short log for each session in the debate's notes or on paper. Track the same four things every time:", + {"list": [ + "Arguments you dropped: anything the opponent said that you never answered. This number should fall first.", + "Time use: whether you finished each speech within ten seconds of the limit without rushing the last point.", + "Weighing: whether your final speech compared impacts explicitly, or just repeated them.", + "Verdict reasons: whether the judge's reason for the decision changes from session to session, or keeps naming the same weakness.", + ]}, + "If the same verdict reason appears three sessions in a row, stop running full rounds and drill that one skill in isolation until it changes.", + ]), + ("Where AI practice stops being enough", [ + "An AI opponent is consistent and always available, which is exactly what makes it a good training partner and a limited judge. It will not reproduce the judge who dislikes speed, the panel that splits, or the opponent who asks a question you never anticipated. Use AI rounds for volume between real practices, and save team practices and coached rounds for adaptation, delivery and the feedback only an experienced person can give.", + ]), + ], + "faqs": [ + ("Which formats can I spar against the AI in?", "Sparring runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds with their speech order and times. For WSDC, British Parliamentary and other formats you can still generate cases, get coaching and drill rebuttals, and time speeches yourself."), + ("Can I give my practice speeches out loud?", "Yes. Sparring and Crossfire can run as spoken rounds in the browser, so you can practise delivery as well as content."), + ("How often should I practise against an AI opponent?", "Two or three focused sessions a week usually beats one long one. Each session should end with one specific fix that you drill before the next round."), + ("Does AI practice replace a coach or real rounds?", "No. It adds repetitions between team practices. Judge adaptation, delivery under pressure and strategic judgement still develop fastest with people."), + ("Are my practice rounds private?", "Yes. Rounds, verdicts and debriefs are saved to your account inside the Current Debate they belong to, behind sign-in. Search engines only see these public guides."), + ], + }, + "ai-debate-coach": { + "features": [ + ("Strategy help", "Ask which clash decides the round, what your burden is and where to spend your speaking time, with answers that use your debate's motion and sources."), + ("Speech structure", "Get an outline for a constructive, rebuttal, summary or reply speech: the order of points and how long to give each one."), + ("Practice feedback", "Paste a speech or a flow and ask what was unclear, under-warranted or dropped, then pick one fix to drill."), + ], + "sections": [ + ("What an AI debate coach is for", [ + "A good human coach rarely gives you an answer first. They ask what the round is about, which side you are on, what you have to prove, and what the judge will be comparing at the end. The AI coach in {product} works best the same way: as a partner you think out loud with, not a machine that writes speeches.", + "Ask is a coaching chat that streams its answer as it writes, and it already knows your Current Debate: the motion and the Library sources you have marked active. That context is the main difference from a general chatbot. You do not have to paste the motion and your research into every question, and the advice stays tied to one debate instead of drifting between topics.", + ]), + ("How to ask a coaching question that gets a useful answer", [ + "Vague questions get generic answers. Compare these two:", + {"list": [ + "Weak: How do I win this debate?", + "Strong: I am second opposition in a WSDC round on this motion. Our first speaker argued the policy is unworkable. What should I add so I am not repeating her, and which proposition argument should I spend most of my rebuttal on?", + ]}, + "The strong version names the format, the speaker role, what has already been said and the decision you actually have to make. A reliable template is: format, side and speaker, what is already on the table, what you are stuck on, and what kind of answer you want (a list, an outline or a single recommendation).", + ]), + ("Five coaching conversations worth having before a tournament", [ + {"steps": [ + "Burden check: ask what each side has to prove for the motion to stand or fall, and where the line between them sits. Many rounds are lost on a burden nobody named.", + "Clash map: ask for the three places where the cases will meet. Plan your speeches around those, not around your own contentions.", + "Weighing rehearsal: give the coach your impact and the likely opposing impact and ask for the comparison in two sentences. Repeat until you can say it without notes.", + "Speech audit: paste a practice speech and ask which claim had no warrant, which point ran too long, and what a judge would remember from it.", + "Opponent prediction: ask how a strong team on the other side would frame the debate, then ask what your first response to that framing should be.", + ]}, + ]), + ("Worked example: coaching a weak rebuttal", [ + {"example": {"title": "Motion: This house believes social media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms", "rows": [ + ("Student's rebuttal:", "Their argument is wrong because free speech is important and this would destroy it."), + ("Coach's diagnosis:", "The response asserts a value but never connects it to the proposition's mechanism. It does not say how liability leads to less speech, so the judge has nothing to weigh."), + ("Coach's question back:", "What would a platform rationally do if it could be sued for every false post?"), + ("Rebuilt rebuttal:", "Liability makes every borderline post a legal risk. A platform facing that risk removes anything it cannot verify quickly, which includes breaking news, whistleblowers and minority viewpoints. So the proposition does not just remove misinformation; it removes true speech that is hard to check, and the people who lose most are those with no other platform."), + ("Follow-up drill:", "Deliver the rebuilt response in forty-five seconds, then ask the coach for the strongest proposition answer to it and prepare a single-sentence reply."), + ]}}, + "Notice that the coach did not write the rebuttal outright. It asked the question that exposed the missing link, which is the habit you want to build for rounds where no coach is available.", + ]), + ("Coaching by format", [ + {"h3": "World Schools (WSDC)"}, + "Ask the coach to check your team split: what the first and second speakers each own, and whether the third speaker can rebut without introducing a new argument. For the reply speech, ask for a structure built around the two or three questions the debate turned on, told from your side, without new material.", + {"h3": "British Parliamentary (BP)"}, + "Role fulfilment decides BP rooms. Ask the coach whether your member speech is a true extension or a restatement of your opening bench, and ask what a whip speech should do with the five other speeches already in the room: group them into clashes, not summaries of each speaker.", + {"h3": "Public Forum (PF)"}, + "Use coaching to plan the summary before the round. Ask which two issues you can realistically extend from constructive through final focus, and what the second rebuttal must frontline so those issues survive. Also ask for crossfire questions that set up your summary rather than score points.", + {"h3": "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)"}, + "LD coaching is often framework coaching. Ask the coach whether your criterion actually measures your value, how your contentions link back to the criterion, and when it is safer to concede the opponent's framework and show that you win under it anyway.", + ]), + ("Getting answers with sources", [ + "When a coaching answer depends on facts, turn on citation mode in Ask. The coach then answers with sources you can open. Treat those as leads: read the original, confirm it says what the answer claims, and only then use it in a speech. Adding your own trusted articles to the Library has the same effect from the other direction, because active sources are included in every answer for that debate.", + ]), + ("What an AI coach cannot do", [ + "It has not watched you speak, it does not know the judges at your tournament, and it cannot tell you how your partner works under pressure. Bring the conclusions from AI coaching sessions to your human coach or team, and let them correct the advice that does not fit the people in the room.", + ]), + ], + "faqs": [ + ("What can I ask the AI debate coach?", "Anything you would ask a coach between rounds: burdens, clash, weighing, speech structure, how to answer a specific argument, or why a practice speech did not land. Specific questions with format, side and speaker role get the best answers."), + ("Does the coach know my case?", "It knows your Current Debate: the motion, and the Library sources you have marked active. Paste a speech or a case section into the question when you want feedback on that exact text."), + ("Can the AI coach cite sources?", "Yes. Turn on citation mode in Ask and the answer includes sources you can open. Check each one against the original before using it in a round."), + ("Will the coach write my speeches for me?", "It can draft an outline or a passage, but you will speak better from structure you understand. Use it to find what is missing, then write the speech in your own words."), + ("How is this different from a general AI chatbot?", "The coach works inside one debate at a time, so it keeps your motion, side and sources in context, and it is set up for debate questions rather than essays."), + ], + }, + "ai-debate-case-generator": { + "features": [ + ("Structured case drafts", "Each draft has a thesis, a framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it."), + ("Evidence leads", "Turn on web research to get sources alongside the draft, then check each one against the original before it goes on a card."), + ("Format templates", "Set the format and your role so the draft fits British Parliamentary, Policy, a classroom debate or a custom structure."), + ], + "sections": [ + ("What the case generator produces", [ + "Generate takes the motion from your Current Debate and returns a structured case, not a block of prose. Every draft has the same parts, so you always know where to look:", + {"list": [ + "Thesis: the one-sentence reason your side should win.", + "Framework: how the judge should decide the round, such as the definition, the burden or the weighing standard you will argue for.", + "Contentions: each with a claim, the warrant that makes it true, and the impact that makes it matter.", + "Predicted opponent case: the arguments a strong team on the other side is likely to run.", + "Counters: first responses to that predicted case.", + ]}, + "Because the opponent case is part of the draft, you start preparing rebuttals at the same time as your own case. When one section is weak, regenerate just that section; the rest of the case stays where it is. Finished cases export to PDF or DOCX.", + ]), + ("From motion to verified case in seven steps", [ + {"steps": [ + "Start a Current Debate with the exact motion wording. Small wording changes, such as should against would, change the burden.", + "Add the sources you already trust to the Library. Active sources are used when the case is generated, so the draft builds on your research instead of ignoring it.", + "Set the format and your role, and add instructions if you need a particular angle, for example a principled argument or an economic one.", + "Turn on web research if you want evidence leads, and generate the case.", + "Read the predicted opponent case first and decide which of your contentions actually answers it. Cut contentions that do not clash with anything.", + "Regenerate any section that is vague, then verify every evidence lead against its original source.", + "Rewrite the final case in your own words and time a full reading of it before you call it ready.", + ]}, + ]), + ("Worked example: a generated case, and what the debater changed", [ + {"example": {"title": "Motion: This house would introduce a four-day school week", "rows": [ + ("Side:", "Proposition."), + ("Thesis:", "A shorter week concentrates instruction where it works and gives schools a recruitment advantage they cannot buy with pay."), + ("Framework:", "The round should be decided by learning outcomes for students across the school, not by the convenience of any single group."), + ("Contention 1:", "Teacher retention. Claim: a four-day week keeps experienced teachers. Warrant: schools competing for staff cannot always raise salaries, but they can offer time. Impact: experienced teachers are among the strongest in-school drivers of student learning."), + ("Predicted opposition:", "Childcare costs for working parents on the fifth day, and lost instruction time for students who are already behind."), + ("Counter:", "Schools can run an optional fifth-day programme for families who need it, and longer remaining days protect total instruction hours."), + ("Evidence lead to verify:", "Research on districts that moved to four-day weeks, looking at attendance, teacher turnover and test results. Read the methodology: results differ between rural and urban districts."), + ("What the debater changed:", "Cut a weaker cost-saving contention the opposition would easily mitigate, and moved the instruction-hours counter into the first speech so it was on the table before the opposition raised it."), + ]}}, + "The draft gave the debater a full structure in minutes. The judgement calls, which contention to cut and where to pre-empt the opposition, were still theirs, and that is where the round was won.", + ]), + ("Checking citations before they reach a card", [ + "Generated evidence is a starting point. Before any source goes into a speech:", + {"list": [ + "Open the original. If you cannot find it, do not use it.", + "Find the exact sentence that supports your claim, and check that the surrounding paragraph does not qualify it.", + "Check the date, the author and who published it. A think-tank brief and a peer-reviewed study carry different weight.", + "Make sure the evidence supports your link, not just your topic. A study showing four-day weeks save money does not prove they improve learning.", + "Record the full citation so you can produce it if an opponent or judge asks.", + ]}, + "Factoids is useful here: give it a single statement from your case and it researches that statement and suggests searches you can use to confirm it.", + ]), + ("Adapting a generated case to your format", [ + {"h3": "World Schools (WSDC)"}, + "A WSDC case is split between the first and second speakers, with a team line both can repeat. Use the thesis as the team line, give the first speaker the framework and the first contention, and keep the strongest contention for the second speaker so the case builds rather than front-loads. Generate with the custom format and say this in the instructions.", + {"h3": "British Parliamentary (BP)"}, + "Set the format to British Parliamentary and choose your role. Opening government needs a clear definition and mechanism in the draft. Closing teams should treat the generated case as material the opening half will probably use, and look in the predicted opponent case for an extension nobody else in the room is likely to run.", + {"h3": "Public Forum (PF)"}, + "A PF constructive is four minutes, which usually means two contentions with evidence, not four. Since PF teams often find out their side shortly before the round, generate both sides of the resolution in the same debate and prepare the counters for each.", + {"h3": "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)"}, + "In LD, the framework section becomes your value and criterion. Check that every contention explicitly links back to the criterion; if one does not, regenerate it with an instruction to tie it to the standard you chose. Prepare a short defence of the criterion itself, because the negative will often attack it first.", + ]), + ("Mistakes to avoid with generated cases", [ + {"list": [ + "Reading the draft in round. Judges hear the difference between a case you wrote and one you are reading for the first time.", + "Keeping every contention. Three well-defended points beat five thin ones.", + "Skipping the predicted opponent case. It is the fastest route to your rebuttals.", + "Citing an evidence lead you never opened.", + ]}, + ]), + ], + "faqs": [ + ("Does the case generator write a complete case?", "It writes a complete draft: thesis, framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the likely opposing case and counters. Treat it as a structure to cut, verify and rewrite in your own words."), + ("Are the generated citations reliable?", "They are research leads. With web research on, the draft includes sources, but you should open every one, confirm the exact claim and record the full citation before using it."), + ("Which debate formats does the generator support?", "You can set the format to British Parliamentary, Policy, Classroom or Custom and choose your role. For WSDC, Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas, use Custom and describe the structure in the instructions."), + ("Can I change one part of a case without starting over?", "Yes. Regenerate a single section and the rest of the case stays on screen unchanged."), + ("Can I export a generated case?", "Yes. Cases export to PDF and DOCX, and cases created in a Current Debate are saved to it automatically."), + ], + }, + "best-ai-debate-tools": { + "features": [ + ("Feature comparison", "What each kind of tool does well: general chatbots, research assistants, dedicated debate platforms, and timers or flowing tools."), + ("Format coverage", "Which formats a tool actually models, from Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas to WSDC and British Parliamentary, and where you still prep by hand."), + ("Workflow differences", "Whether cases, sources, practice rounds and feedback stay connected to one motion, or end up scattered across chats and documents."), + ], + "sections": [ + ("The four kinds of AI debate tool", [ + "Debaters use AI tools for different jobs, and the categories overlap less than the marketing suggests. Most prep setups combine at least two of these.", + {"h3": "General AI chatbots"}, + "Assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are flexible and good at brainstorming, explaining a concept or tightening a paragraph. Their weakness for debate is structure: they do not hold a motion, side and format across sessions unless you rebuild the context each time, and they will produce confident claims without sources unless you ask.", + {"h3": "Research and citation tools"}, + "AI search and research assistants are strongest at finding sources quickly. They help with evidence but not with turning evidence into arguments, rebuttals or speeches.", + {"h3": "Dedicated debate platforms"}, + "These are built around debate concepts: cases with contentions, rebuttals, opponents and verdicts. They vary a great deal in which formats they model and whether they let you practise or only generate text.", + {"h3": "Practice utilities"}, + "Timers, flowing templates and argument maps. Often simple, sometimes not AI-based at all, and still essential for practice that matches tournament conditions.", + ]), + ("Eight criteria for comparing AI debate tools", [ + {"steps": [ + "Structure: does the output separate claim, warrant and impact, or is it a wall of text?", + "Format awareness: does it know your speech order, times and roles, or treat every debate as an essay?", + "Sources: can you see where a claim comes from, and can you add your own material for it to use?", + "Opposition: does it predict and argue the other side, or only help with yours?", + "Practice: can you deliver a speech and get a response to it, not just read generated text?", + "Feedback: does it tell you why an argument failed, with something specific to fix?", + "Continuity: does work stay organised by motion, or do you lose it in a long chat history?", + "Limits and privacy: what is the daily or monthly allowance, and who can see your prep?", + ]}, + "Weight the criteria by what you need. A novice benefits most from structure and feedback; an experienced competitor often cares most about sources, opposition and practice.", + ]), + ("A one-hour test you can run on any tool", [ + "Reviews and feature lists only go so far. The fairest comparison is to give every tool the same motion and the same tasks:", + {"steps": [ + "Pick a motion in your format that you know well, so you can judge the quality of the answers.", + "Ask each tool for a case on one side. Score it on structure and on whether the warrants actually prove the claims.", + "Ask each tool for the strongest argument against that case. Score whether it found the real weak point or a generic objection.", + "Paste one of your own past speeches and ask what it would change. Score how specific the feedback is.", + "Ask for evidence on one factual claim. Open every source and score how many check out.", + "Note how much context you had to repeat between steps.", + ]}, + "Fifteen minutes per tool is enough to see the difference. Keep the scores; they are more useful than any ranking list, including this one.", + ]), + ("Worked example: scoring answers to one motion", [ + {"example": {"title": "Motion: This house would make voting compulsory", "rows": [ + ("Task:", "Find the weakest link in the proposition argument that compulsory voting produces a more representative government."), + ("Strong answer:", "Points out that turnout and representation are different: compelled voters who know little about the candidates may vote randomly or for the first name on the ballot, so higher turnout may not mean preferences are better represented."), + ("Weak answer:", "Says compulsory voting violates freedom. That is an opposition argument, not an attack on the proposition's link, and it does not engage with representation at all."), + ("How to score it:", "Give the point only if the tool attacked the warrant (why more voters means better representation) rather than changing the subject."), + ]}}, + "Running the same task through several tools shows quickly which ones understand debate structure and which ones produce plausible but generic text.", + ]), + ("Which tools fit which format", [ + {"h3": "World Schools (WSDC)"}, + "WSDC prep is team prep under time pressure, often for impromptu motions. Prioritise fast brainstorming and motion analysis, plus a way to practise Points of Information. Few tools model the full WSDC round, so expect to time speeches yourself.", + {"h3": "British Parliamentary (BP)"}, + "BP rewards role knowledge and extensions. Look for tools that let you set the format and your team position, and that can show you what the opening half is likely to say so closing teams can plan something new.", + {"h3": "Public Forum (PF)"}, + "PF depends on evidence and on keeping summary and final focus consistent. Strong source handling matters more here than in most formats, along with practice rounds that use real PF speech times.", + {"h3": "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)"}, + "LD needs tools that handle value and criterion, not just policy arguments. Test whether a tool can defend a framework and link contentions to it, and whether it can practise the time-pressured 1AR.", + ]), + ("Where {product} fits", [ + "{product} is a dedicated debate platform that keeps every case, source, round and debrief inside one Current Debate. It covers case generation with a predicted opponent case, Library sources that ground every answer, Attack for finding weak links, Brainstorm, Factoids for checking claims, an Ask coaching chat with optional citations, Crossfire and full Sparring rounds with a verdict, a speech timer and an argument flowchart.", + "Its limits are worth stating plainly. Sparring currently runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds, so WSDC and BP practice uses the prep and coaching tools rather than a full simulated round. Like every AI tool, its evidence leads need checking against the original source. Run the one-hour test above and decide on your own results.", + ]), + ], + "faqs": [ + ("What is the best AI tool for debate?", "It depends on the job. General chatbots are flexible for brainstorming, research tools find sources, and dedicated debate platforms add structure, opponents and practice. Most debaters do best with a dedicated platform plus a way to verify sources."), + ("Is a general chatbot good enough for debate prep?", "For brainstorming and explaining concepts, often yes. It is weaker at keeping a motion, side and format in context, predicting the opposing case, timing speeches and giving round-style feedback."), + ("Are free AI debate tools enough?", "Free tiers are a good way to run the comparison test. Check the daily or monthly limits against how many practice sessions you plan before a tournament."), + ("Can I use AI tools during a debate round?", "Usually not. Most leagues restrict or ban internet access and electronic help during rounds. Check your league's rules, and use AI tools for preparation."), + ("How should I compare AI debate tools fairly?", "Give every tool the same motion and the same tasks, such as a case, the strongest counter, feedback on your speech and evidence for one claim, then score each answer against the same criteria."), + ], + }, + "debate-rebuttal-practice": { + "features": [ + ("Find weak warrants", "Paste an argument into Attack and get the links that fail: missing warrants, overclaimed impacts and assumptions the other side never proved."), + ("Build targeted blocks", "Turn each weakness into a short block with a tag line, the response and why it matters, kept in your Current Debate."), + ("Practice weighing and collapse", "Deliver rebuttals in a Sparring round and see in the verdict whether your weighing changed the outcome."), + ], + "sections": [ + ("The five ways to answer an argument", [ + "Every rebuttal is one of a small number of moves. Naming the move before you speak keeps the response short and makes it obvious to the judge what you have done:", + {"list": [ + "Deny the claim: show the thing they say happens does not happen.", + "Attack the warrant: accept the claim could be true, but show their reason for it does not prove it.", + "Mitigate the impact: concede the mechanism but show the effect is smaller, rarer or slower than they said.", + "Turn it: show their argument actually supports your side.", + "Outweigh it: concede the point and show your impact matters more.", + ]}, + "Attacking the warrant is usually the strongest choice, because a claim without a warrant gives the judge nothing to weigh. Turns are the most powerful when they work and the most dangerous when they do not, so practise them before using them in a round.", + ]), + ("A 20-minute rebuttal drill", [ + {"steps": [ + "Choose one opposing argument you expect to face. If you have generated a case, take it from the predicted opponent case.", + "Paste it into Attack and read the weaknesses it finds. Pick the one that breaks the argument, not the one that is easiest to say.", + "Write a block: a five-word tag line, the response in two or three sentences, and one sentence on why it matters for the round.", + "Time yourself delivering the block in under forty-five seconds.", + "Ask the coach for the best answer to your block, and add a one-sentence reply to the bottom.", + "Repeat with the next most likely argument. Three tested blocks per session is a good pace.", + ]}, + "File each block in the same Current Debate so your rebuttals sit next to the case they answer.", + ]), + ("Worked example: rebutting one argument", [ + {"example": {"title": "Motion: This house would ban zoos", "rows": [ + ("Opposition argument:", "Zoos protect endangered species through captive breeding programmes, so a ban would push some species closer to extinction."), + ("Weak link:", "The argument assumes that captive breeding requires zoos as they exist now, with public display, rather than conservation centres run for that purpose."), + ("Response (attack the warrant):", "Breeding programmes need specialist facilities and genetic management, not visitors. A ban on zoos as public attractions does not stop sanctuaries and conservation centres from running them."), + ("Response (mitigate):", "Most animals kept in zoos are not part of reintroduction programmes, so even if some breeding is lost, the protection the opposition claims is far smaller than their argument suggests."), + ("Weighing:", "Even at full strength, their benefit applies to a small number of species. Our harm, keeping animals in conditions that do not meet their needs for public entertainment, applies to every animal in every zoo."), + ("Forty-five second version:", "Their benefit is breeding, but breeding does not need an audience. Ban the attraction, keep the conservation centres, and their argument disappears."), + ]}}, + "The response does not argue about whether conservation matters. It targets the one assumption the argument needs, which is faster and harder to answer.", + ]), + ("Rebuttal tips by format", [ + {"h3": "World Schools (WSDC)"}, + "Rebuttal grows through the bench: the first opposition speaker begins it, the second speaker does the bulk of it, and the third speaker organises the debate into its main clashes and should not add new arguments. Practise third-speaker rebuttal by taking a full set of opposing points and grouping them under two or three questions, then answering each question once.", + {"h3": "British Parliamentary (BP)"}, + "Closing teams must rebut and extend at the same time, so practise blocks that answer the opening bench across from you and then lead straight into your extension. Whips should rebut by clash, not speaker by speaker, and avoid new material.", + {"h3": "Public Forum (PF)"}, + "In a four-minute rebuttal, the second-speaking team should answer the attacks made on its own case as well as attacking the opponent's, or those arguments will be hard to bring back in summary. Practise splitting the four minutes, and remember that what is not in summary should not appear in final focus.", + {"h3": "Lincoln-Douglas (LD)"}, + "The 1AR has four minutes to answer seven minutes of negative material. Practise grouping similar responses, cross-applying your framework to several arguments at once, and saying the important responses first so the 2AR has something to extend. For the negative rebuttal, drill collapsing onto the one or two arguments that best outweigh.", + ]), + ("Use cross-examination to set up your rebuttal", [ + "The best rebuttals often start in cross-examination. If an argument rests on an assumption, ask a question that gets the speaker to commit to it, then attack the assumption in your speech. Crossfire lets you practise this against the AI, asking questions or answering them, and each Crossfire ends with a debrief you can turn into new blocks.", + ]), + ("Common rebuttal mistakes", [ + {"list": [ + "Answering every sentence instead of the argument the round depends on.", + "Restating your own case rather than engaging with theirs.", + "Giving a response without saying why it matters for the decision.", + "Leaving the weighing to the final speech, when the judge has already started deciding.", + "Losing track of what has been dropped. Keep a flow, or map the clash in the argument flowchart, so nothing important goes unanswered.", + ]}, + ]), + ], + "faqs": [ + ("How can I practise rebuttals on my own?", "Take the arguments you expect to face, find each one's weakest link with Attack, write a short block, and deliver it against a timer. Then ask the AI for the best reply to your block and prepare an answer."), + ("How long should a rebuttal response be?", "Most single responses should take under a minute. Total rebuttal time depends on the format, from four minutes in Public Forum to most of an eight-minute WSDC speech."), + ("What is the difference between a rebuttal and a block?", "A block is a rebuttal prepared before the round for an argument you expect. In the round you adapt the block to what the opponent actually said."), + ("Can the AI predict my opponent's arguments?", "Yes. Each generated case includes a predicted opponent case, which is a practical list of arguments to prepare blocks against."), + ("How do I stop dropping arguments?", "Flow every speech, mark each opposing argument as answered or not, and group similar arguments so one response covers several. Practise against a timer until it becomes routine."), + ], + }, +} diff --git a/scripts/sitemap.mjs b/scripts/sitemap.mjs index 4de68c3dc..9d0e20922 100644 --- a/scripts/sitemap.mjs +++ b/scripts/sitemap.mjs @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ import { readdirSync, readFileSync, writeFileSync } from 'node:fs'; import { join, relative, sep } from 'node:path'; const DIST = 'dist'; -const SITE_ORIGIN = 'https://debate.pi-stack.org'; +const SITE_ORIGIN = JSON.parse(readFileSync('src/config/site.json', 'utf8')).origin; function htmlPages(directory) { return readdirSync(directory, { withFileTypes: true }).flatMap((entry) => { diff --git a/src/config/site.json b/src/config/site.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8b36397a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/config/site.json @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +{ + "origin": "https://debate.pi-stack.org", + "product": "DebateLab", + "brand": "DebateLab by Pi-Stack", + "organization": "Pi-Stack" +} diff --git a/src/lib/seo/pages.ts b/src/lib/seo/pages.ts index d237b77fb..90058e839 100644 --- a/src/lib/seo/pages.ts +++ b/src/lib/seo/pages.ts @@ -1,5 +1,10 @@ -export const SITE_ORIGIN = 'https://debate.pi-stack.org'; -export const BRAND = 'DebateLab by Pi-Stack'; +import site from '@/config/site.json'; + +/** Brand and domain strings live in src/config/site.json; nothing else should hardcode them. */ +export const SITE_ORIGIN = site.origin; +export const BRAND = site.brand; +export const PRODUCT = site.product; +export const ORGANIZATION = site.organization; export interface PageHead { title: string; @@ -15,23 +20,23 @@ export interface PageHead { */ export const PAGE_HEADS = { '/': { - title: 'DebateLab by Pi-Stack | AI Debate Prep, Cases & Rebuttals', - description: 'DebateLab by Pi-Stack helps students and competitive debaters practice with AI opponents, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence leads, coaching, timers, and argument flowcharts.', + title: `${BRAND} | AI Debate Prep, Cases & Rebuttals`, + description: `${BRAND} helps students and competitive debaters practice with AI opponents, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence leads, coaching, timers, and argument flowcharts.`, canonicalPath: '/', }, '/terms': { - title: 'Terms of Service | DebateLab by Pi-Stack', - description: 'The terms for using DebateLab by Pi-Stack: accounts, subscriptions and billing, acceptable use, AI-generated content, intellectual property, and liability.', + title: `Terms of Service | ${BRAND}`, + description: `The terms for using ${BRAND}: accounts, subscriptions and billing, acceptable use, AI-generated content, intellectual property, and liability.`, canonicalPath: '/terms', }, '/privacy': { - title: 'Privacy Policy | DebateLab by Pi-Stack', - description: 'How DebateLab by Pi-Stack collects, uses, stores, and shares your information, how AI requests are processed, and the rights you have over your data.', + title: `Privacy Policy | ${BRAND}`, + description: `How ${BRAND} collects, uses, stores, and shares your information, how AI requests are processed, and the rights you have over your data.`, canonicalPath: '/privacy', }, '*': { - title: 'Page not found | DebateLab by Pi-Stack', - description: 'This page does not exist on DebateLab by Pi-Stack.', + title: `Page not found | ${BRAND}`, + description: `This page does not exist on ${BRAND}.`, }, } as const satisfies Record; diff --git a/src/prerender/entry.tsx b/src/prerender/entry.tsx index ca1d042b7..c5ff757d0 100644 --- a/src/prerender/entry.tsx +++ b/src/prerender/entry.tsx @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ import { StaticRouter } from 'react-router-dom'; import i18n from '@/i18n'; import { TooltipProvider } from '@/components/ui/tooltip'; import { AuthContext, type AuthContextValue } from '@/lib/supabase/auth-context'; -import { BRAND, PAGE_HEADS, SITE_ORIGIN, type PageHead, type PrerenderedRoute } from '@/lib/seo/pages'; +import { BRAND, ORGANIZATION, PAGE_HEADS, PRODUCT, SITE_ORIGIN, type PageHead, type PrerenderedRoute } from '@/lib/seo/pages'; import LandingPage from '@/pages/LandingPage'; import TermsPage from '@/pages/TermsPage'; import PrivacyPage from '@/pages/PrivacyPage'; @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ function landingStructuredData(dateModified: string | undefined) { { '@type': 'Organization', '@id': ORGANIZATION_ID, - name: 'Pi-Stack', + name: ORGANIZATION, url: `${SITE_ORIGIN}/`, logo: `${SITE_ORIGIN}/favicon.png`, }, @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ function landingStructuredData(dateModified: string | undefined) { '@type': 'SoftwareApplication', '@id': `${SITE_ORIGIN}/#software`, name: BRAND, - alternateName: 'DebateLab', + alternateName: PRODUCT, applicationCategory: 'EducationalApplication', operatingSystem: 'Web', url: `${SITE_ORIGIN}/`,