From 7175c8d9290a17ff0d8581e41600a1befb3ac4a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 15:21:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Make guide product claims match the app The case generator guide told readers to turn on web research, but Generate researches every motion and has no switch. It also put format and instructions in Generate, where they live in the Current Debate. Eight other guides claimed things the app does not do: Sparring reading Library sources, a debate notes field, saved rebuttal blocks, sources used in every answer, and a prep-timer use for the speech timer. gsc_submit.py now inspects the survivors of the four guide slugs that #155 retired. The brand-redirect URLs stay on purpose. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 --- public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html | 8 +-- public/ai-debate-coach/index.html | 6 +-- public/ai-debate-practice/index.html | 4 +- public/argument-flowchart/index.html | 4 +- public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html | 4 +- public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html | 6 +-- public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html | 4 +- public/online-debate-timer/index.html | 6 +-- scripts/generate_seo_content.py | 2 +- scripts/gsc_submit.py | 8 +-- scripts/seo_guides.py | 59 ++++++++++++---------- 12 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) diff --git a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html index 19d56d256..9588d100f 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

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.
+

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

Every draft is researched on the web and lists the sources it found. Check each one against the original before it goes on a card.

Roles and length

Pick your side and speaker role, then set the case length, the audience level and the tone of the draft.

+

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. Choose your side and speaker role: introductor, R1, R2 or conclusor. Under More options, set the length (two, three or four contentions), the audience level and the tone. If you need a particular angle, for example a principled argument or an economic one, put it in the Current Debate's Instructions.
  4. Generate the case. Generate researches the motion on the web every time, lists the sources it found under the draft, and saves the relevant ones to the debate's Library.
  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. Leave the Current Debate's format on Custom and describe this split in its Instructions.

British Parliamentary (BP)

Set the Current Debate's format to British Parliamentary and name your team position in its Instructions; Generate's own role options follow the School 4-6-6-3 speakers. 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, add your criterion to the Current Debate's Instructions and regenerate the contentions. 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

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ World Schools Debate Prep with AI How to Weigh in Debate: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe How to Cross-Examine in Debate Guide
-

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.

+

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. Every draft is researched on the web and lists the sources it found, and a contention that still needs evidence is marked Needs Source. Open every source, confirm the exact claim and record the full citation before using it.

Which debate formats does the generator support?

Set the Current Debate's format to British Parliamentary, Policy, Classroom or Custom, and Generate reads it along with the debate's Instructions. Generate's own speaker roles (introductor, R1, R2 and conclusor) follow the School 4-6-6-3 format. 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 37a48ede3..e2cff6f00 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

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.

+

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 Citations 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 that fit the question are used in its answers 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

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ World Schools Debate Prep with AI How to Weigh in Debate: Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe How to Cross-Examine in Debate Guide
-

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.

+

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 Citations 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, debate settings and sources in context, and it is set up for debate questions rather than essays.

diff --git a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html index d2c5880dc..e25aa2dda 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

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.

+

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 argues the same motion you wrote your case for, 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 Current Debate's 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 on paper or in a document. 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

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI diff --git a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html index 1dfb0bdba..43ea4c31a 100644 --- a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html +++ b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

Put the thesis, each argument, the attacks on it and your rebuttals on one canvas, so you can see where the round will be decided.

Link and strength tracking

Mark each argument strong, moderate or weak, and connect nodes with support, attack and rebuttal links.

Saved with your debate

Flowcharts save to the Current Debate next to its case and rebuttals, and export as a PNG for teammates.

-

Why map arguments at all

Arguments are chains: a claim depends on a warrant, the warrant on an assumption, and the impact on all of them. When one link breaks, the whole contention falls. A flowchart makes the chain visible, so you can see which link the other side will attack and which link of theirs you should attack.

A map also shows what a written case hides. Two contentions that rely on the same assumption look independent on paper; on a map they share a node, and one good response takes out both.

How the DebateLab flowchart works

A new flowchart starts with a thesis and three example arguments you can edit or delete. Each node has a label, a description and a type:

  • Thesis: the position your side has to prove.
  • Argument: a contention, rated strong, moderate or weak.
  • Attack: an opposing response to one of your arguments.
  • Rebuttal: your answer to an attack.
  • Dropped: an argument nobody answered.

Links between nodes are support, attack or rebuttal, each drawn in its own style. Save the chart to the Current Debate, load it again later, or export it as an image.

Build from the motion outward

  1. Write the thesis as one sentence: what your side must prove for the motion.
  2. Add each contention as an argument node and link it to the thesis. Rate it honestly; a weak node is one to fix or cut.
  3. For each contention, add the strongest attack you expect. If you have generated a case, the predicted opponent case is the place to find them.
  4. Add your rebuttal to each attack. Where you cannot write one, the map has found your gap.
  5. Mark weighing at each clash: a note on why your side of that clash matters more.

Build the opposing case the same way on a second chart. Most rounds turn on two or three clashes, and the two maps side by side show which ones.

Worked example: mapping one clash

Motion: This house would ban single-use plastics

Thesis: A ban cuts plastic pollution at its largest source.

Argument (strong): Single-use items are a large share of plastic waste and are rarely recycled.

Attack: Substitutes such as paper and glass have a higher carbon footprint per use.

Rebuttal: The comparison only holds if reusable items are used a few times; reuse, not substitution, is the goal of the ban.

Weighing note: Plastic pollution lasts for centuries and cannot be reversed, while the footprint of substitutes falls with every reuse.

The map makes it obvious that the round turns on the substitution clash. That is where the rebuttal speech and the weighing should go.

Use the map in your speeches

Before you speak, look for the path that wins: the strongest argument still standing after the attacks, and the weighing that makes it outweigh. Speak to that path and drop the rest. A good map helps you collapse instead of spreading yourself thin.

During a round, a written flow is faster than any canvas. Use the flowchart to prepare before the round and to review the clashes after it, and keep your in-round flow on paper or a laptop.

+

Why map arguments at all

Arguments are chains: a claim depends on a warrant, the warrant on an assumption, and the impact on all of them. When one link breaks, the whole contention falls. A flowchart makes the chain visible, so you can see which link the other side will attack and which link of theirs you should attack.

A map also shows what a written case hides. Two contentions that rely on the same assumption look independent on paper; on a map they share a node, and one good response takes out both.

How the DebateLab flowchart works

A new flowchart starts with a thesis, three example arguments, an opponent attack and a rebuttal, all of which you can edit or delete. Each node has a label, a description and a type:

  • Thesis: the position your side has to prove.
  • Argument: a contention, rated strong, moderate or weak.
  • Attack: an opposing response to one of your arguments.
  • Rebuttal: your answer to an attack.
  • Dropped: an argument nobody answered.

Links between nodes are support, attack or rebuttal, each drawn in its own style. Save the chart to the Current Debate, load it again later, or export it as an image.

Build from the motion outward

  1. Write the thesis as one sentence: what your side must prove for the motion.
  2. Add each contention as an argument node and link it to the thesis. Rate it honestly; a weak node is one to fix or cut.
  3. For each contention, add the strongest attack you expect. If you have generated a case, the predicted opponent case is the place to find them.
  4. Add your rebuttal to each attack. Where you cannot write one, the map has found your gap.
  5. Mark weighing at each clash in a node's description: why your side of that clash matters more.

Build the opposing case the same way on a second chart. Most rounds turn on two or three clashes, and the two maps side by side show which ones.

Worked example: mapping one clash

Motion: This house would ban single-use plastics

Thesis: A ban cuts plastic pollution at its largest source.

Argument (strong): Single-use items are a large share of plastic waste and are rarely recycled.

Attack: Substitutes such as paper and glass have a higher carbon footprint per use.

Rebuttal: The comparison only holds if reusable items are used a few times; reuse, not substitution, is the goal of the ban.

Weighing note: Plastic pollution lasts for centuries and cannot be reversed, while the footprint of substitutes falls with every reuse.

The map makes it obvious that the round turns on the substitution clash. That is where the rebuttal speech and the weighing should go.

Use the map in your speeches

Before you speak, look for the path that wins: the strongest argument still standing after the attacks, and the weighing that makes it outweigh. Speak to that path and drop the rest. A good map helps you collapse instead of spreading yourself thin.

During a round, a written flow is faster than any canvas. Use the flowchart to prepare before the round and to review the clashes after it, and keep your in-round flow on paper or a laptop.

Related DebateLab guides

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI diff --git a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html index 8071507f6..f209258a8 100644 --- a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html +++ b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

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.

+

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 its answers, 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 with Citations Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer diff --git a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html index 50ab8b50c..0f4b1c673 100644 --- a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html +++ b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

Research directions for a claim: the kinds of sources that could support it and searches you can run to confirm it.

Citation checks

A checklist for each source before it goes on a card: author, date, method and whether the quote says what you claim.

Impact links

Evidence tied to the warrant and the clash it supports, not added to a speech as decoration.

-

Evidence is not the argument

Evidence wins rounds only when it supports a clear warrant. A source should answer a burden in the round, not decorate a speech. Before you look for a card, write the claim it needs to prove in one sentence. If you cannot, more research will not help.

The most useful evidence sits on a specific clash: solvency, harms, trade-offs, comparative examples and the weighing.

AI research is a starting point

AI tools are good at suggesting where to look: which kinds of reports, journals or data sources might support a link. They are not a replacement for reading the source. A summary can lose a qualification, mix up two studies, or point to a page that says something different.

Treat every AI result as a lead. Open the original, read enough of it to understand the context, and only then decide whether it belongs in your case.

Finding evidence with DebateLab

  1. Give Factoids a single statement from your case. It researches that statement and returns supporting factoids with citations, context and suggestions for how to use them.
  2. Generate a case. DebateLab researches the motion before it writes, so the draft comes with sources for its claims.
  3. Save the sources you trust to the Library. Active Library sources ground the other tools for that debate, so later answers draw on material you have checked.
  4. Ask for counter-evidence too. Attack runs research on an argument and can point to sources that cut against it, which tells you what the other side may read.

Verify before you read it aloud

A bad card is worse than no card. If your evidence is challenged in cross-ex and does not say what you claimed, you lose the point and some of the judge's trust in the rest of your case. Check each source before it goes on a card:

  • Author: who wrote it, and are they qualified to make this claim?
  • Date: is it recent enough for the claim, and has anything changed since?
  • Publication: a peer-reviewed journal, a government report, a newspaper or a blog all carry different weight.
  • Method: for a study, what was the sample, how was it measured, and does it show cause or only correlation?
  • Context: read the paragraphs around the quote. Make sure the author is not describing a view they go on to reject.
  • Citation: record the full citation, so you can produce the source if the other side or the judge asks.

What to do when the evidence is weak

Do not read it. Look for a better source, narrow the claim so the evidence you have does prove it, or make the argument analytically: explain the reasoning without leaning on a card. A clear warrant with no card often beats a weak card that falls apart under one question.

Worked example

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

Claim: A four-day week improves teacher retention.

Lead found: A summary says districts that moved to four days saw fewer teachers leave.

Check: The original study covers a small number of rural districts, and the authors say they cannot separate the schedule from pay changes made at the same time.

Decision: Narrow the claim to rural districts, say the evidence suggests but does not prove the effect, and support it with an analytical warrant about recruitment.

The weaker claim is easier to defend, and the honesty about the study removes the easiest cross-ex question the other side could ask.

+

Evidence is not the argument

Evidence wins rounds only when it supports a clear warrant. A source should answer a burden in the round, not decorate a speech. Before you look for a card, write the claim it needs to prove in one sentence. If you cannot, more research will not help.

The most useful evidence sits on a specific clash: solvency, harms, trade-offs, comparative examples and the weighing.

AI research is a starting point

AI tools are good at suggesting where to look: which kinds of reports, journals or data sources might support a link. They are not a replacement for reading the source. A summary can lose a qualification, mix up two studies, or point to a page that says something different.

Treat every AI result as a lead. Open the original, read enough of it to understand the context, and only then decide whether it belongs in your case.

Finding evidence with DebateLab

  1. Give Factoids a single statement from your case. It researches that statement and returns supporting factoids with citations, context and suggestions for how to use them.
  2. Generate a case. DebateLab researches the motion before it writes, so the draft comes with sources for its claims.
  3. Save the sources you trust to the Library. Active Library sources that fit a request are used by the other prep tools for that debate, so later answers draw on material you have checked.
  4. Ask for counter-evidence too. Attack runs research on an argument and can point to sources that cut against it, which tells you what the other side may read.

Verify before you read it aloud

A bad card is worse than no card. If your evidence is challenged in cross-ex and does not say what you claimed, you lose the point and some of the judge's trust in the rest of your case. Check each source before it goes on a card:

  • Author: who wrote it, and are they qualified to make this claim?
  • Date: is it recent enough for the claim, and has anything changed since?
  • Publication: a peer-reviewed journal, a government report, a newspaper or a blog all carry different weight.
  • Method: for a study, what was the sample, how was it measured, and does it show cause or only correlation?
  • Context: read the paragraphs around the quote. Make sure the author is not describing a view they go on to reject.
  • Citation: record the full citation, so you can produce the source if the other side or the judge asks.

What to do when the evidence is weak

Do not read it. Look for a better source, narrow the claim so the evidence you have does prove it, or make the argument analytically: explain the reasoning without leaning on a card. A clear warrant with no card often beats a weak card that falls apart under one question.

Worked example

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

Claim: A four-day week improves teacher retention.

Lead found: A summary says districts that moved to four days saw fewer teachers leave.

Check: The original study covers a small number of rural districts, and the authors say they cannot separate the schedule from pay changes made at the same time.

Decision: Narrow the claim to rural districts, say the evidence suggests but does not prove the effect, and support it with an analytical warrant about recruitment.

The weaker claim is easier to defend, and the honesty about the study removes the easiest cross-ex question the other side could ask.

Related DebateLab guides

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI diff --git a/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html b/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html index 537466b39..ab98441c1 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

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.
+

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

Each weakness comes with why it is weak, how the other side will attack it and a stronger version. Turn that into a short block; the analysis stays 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.

Your Attack analyses stay 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

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI Policy Debate Prep with AI diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html b/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html index f44f60438..619113b09 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html +++ b/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ - +
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
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

A general assistant

ChatGPT can brainstorm, explain, draft and revise on any subject, including debate.

A debate workspace

DebateLab organises prep around one motion at a time, with structured cases, an AI opponent, a timer and judged practice rounds.

Using both

Where each tool fits in a week of debate preparation, and how to move work between them.

-

The short answer

ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI assistant. DebateLab is a debate practice workspace. Both use large language models, but they are designed for different jobs. If you want to explore an idea, learn background on a topic or tighten a paragraph, a general assistant is flexible and fast. If you want to prepare a specific motion, practise against an opponent at real speech times and get a verdict on your round, a tool built around debate structure saves the setup you would otherwise do by hand in every conversation.

Many debaters use both. This page explains where each is stronger so you can decide what fits your preparation.

What ChatGPT does well for debaters

  • Background learning: explaining an unfamiliar topic, the main positions in a policy area or a philosophical idea behind a value resolution.
  • Open brainstorming: generating many possible angles quickly, including unusual ones.
  • Writing help: tightening a sentence, simplifying a paragraph for a lay judge or suggesting a clearer tag line.
  • Flexibility: it handles any request, so you can use it for tasks no debate tool was built for.

Those are real strengths. The limits come from the same flexibility: a general chat does not know which motion you are preparing, which side you are on, what format you debate or what sources you trust, unless you tell it again, and it has no concept of a round to practise in.

What a debate workspace adds

One motion, one place

In DebateLab, everything belongs to a Current Debate: the motion, the Library sources you have added, generated cases, Attack analyses, practice rounds and debriefs. Each tool reads the same context, so you never paste the motion and your research into a new conversation.

Structured output

Generated cases always have the same parts: thesis, framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it. Attack always returns ranked weaknesses that quote the attacked words, with a response to say in round, cross-examination questions and a weighing analysis. Fixed structure makes the output easier to check and to turn into speeches.

Timed practice rounds

Sparring runs full rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, with each speech timed, and ends with a verdict that names the reason for the decision. Crossfire drills cross-examination in either direction. A speech timer covers Standard, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and Policy speech orders.

Sources you control

Sources you add to the Library and mark active are used across the tools for that debate. Ask can answer with citations, and Factoids researches a single claim. Evidence still needs checking against the original, as with any AI tool.

Worked example: the same task in both tools

Task: prepare to answer the opposition on This house would make voting compulsory

In a general chat: You describe the motion, your side and your format, then ask for the opposition's arguments. You get a useful list. To get responses, you ask again; to check one argument in depth, you paste it back; to practise, you would need to role-play a round and keep track of time yourself.

In DebateLab: You start a Current Debate with the motion, generate your proposition case and read the predicted opposition case it includes. You paste the strongest opposition argument into Attack, which returns its weakest link, a response to say and a cross-ex question. You import the questions into Crossfire to practise them, then run a timed Sparring round and read the verdict.

The difference: Individual sentences can be similar in quality. What changes is how much setup you repeat, and whether you end up practising a round or only reading text.

Which should you use?

  • Learning about a topic from scratch: a general assistant is a good start.
  • Writing a case for a specific motion: a debate workspace gives a consistent structure and a predicted opposing case.
  • Finding the weak point in an opposing argument: a tool that returns structured weaknesses and responses is faster to use in prep.
  • Practising speeches and rounds: you need timing, an opponent and a verdict, which a general chat does not provide.
  • Polishing wording: either works; use the one you are already in.

A practical split is to use a general assistant for open-ended learning and DebateLab for motion-specific preparation and practice.

Things that are true of both

Both can state things confidently that are not true, so neither replaces reading original sources before you quote them. Neither should be used during a round where your league forbids electronic help, which is most leagues. And neither replaces a coach or teammates who have watched you debate.

+

The short answer

ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI assistant. DebateLab is a debate practice workspace. Both use large language models, but they are designed for different jobs. If you want to explore an idea, learn background on a topic or tighten a paragraph, a general assistant is flexible and fast. If you want to prepare a specific motion, practise against an opponent at real speech times and get a verdict on your round, a tool built around debate structure saves the setup you would otherwise do by hand in every conversation.

Many debaters use both. This page explains where each is stronger so you can decide what fits your preparation.

What ChatGPT does well for debaters

  • Background learning: explaining an unfamiliar topic, the main positions in a policy area or a philosophical idea behind a value resolution.
  • Open brainstorming: generating many possible angles quickly, including unusual ones.
  • Writing help: tightening a sentence, simplifying a paragraph for a lay judge or suggesting a clearer tag line.
  • Flexibility: it handles any request, so you can use it for tasks no debate tool was built for.

Those are real strengths. The limits come from the same flexibility: a general chat does not know which motion you are preparing, which side you are on, what format you debate or what sources you trust, unless you tell it again, and it has no concept of a round to practise in.

What a debate workspace adds

One motion, one place

In DebateLab, everything belongs to a Current Debate: the motion, the Library sources you have added, generated cases, Attack analyses, practice rounds and debriefs. The prep tools read that context, so you never paste the motion and your research into a new conversation.

Structured output

Generated cases always have the same parts: thesis, framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it. Attack always returns ranked weaknesses that quote the attacked words, with a response to say in round, cross-examination questions and a weighing analysis. Fixed structure makes the output easier to check and to turn into speeches.

Timed practice rounds

Sparring runs full rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, with each speech timed, and ends with a verdict that names the reason for the decision. Crossfire drills cross-examination in either direction. A speech timer covers Standard, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and Policy speech orders.

Sources you control

Sources you add to the Library and mark active are given to the prep tools for that debate, which use the ones that fit each request. Ask can answer with citations, and Factoids researches a single claim. Evidence still needs checking against the original, as with any AI tool.

Worked example: the same task in both tools

Task: prepare to answer the opposition on This house would make voting compulsory

In a general chat: You describe the motion, your side and your format, then ask for the opposition's arguments. You get a useful list. To get responses, you ask again; to check one argument in depth, you paste it back; to practise, you would need to role-play a round and keep track of time yourself.

In DebateLab: You start a Current Debate with the motion, generate your proposition case and read the predicted opposition case it includes. You paste the strongest opposition argument into Attack, which returns its weakest link, a response to say and a cross-ex question. You import the questions into Crossfire to practise them, then run a timed Sparring round and read the verdict.

The difference: Individual sentences can be similar in quality. What changes is how much setup you repeat, and whether you end up practising a round or only reading text.

Which should you use?

  • Learning about a topic from scratch: a general assistant is a good start.
  • Writing a case for a specific motion: a debate workspace gives a consistent structure and a predicted opposing case.
  • Finding the weak point in an opposing argument: a tool that returns structured weaknesses and responses is faster to use in prep.
  • Practising speeches and rounds: you need timing, an opponent and a verdict, which a general chat does not provide.
  • Polishing wording: either works; use the one you are already in.

A practical split is to use a general assistant for open-ended learning and DebateLab for motion-specific preparation and practice.

Things that are true of both

Both can state things confidently that are not true, so neither replaces reading original sources before you quote them. Neither should be used during a round where your league forbids electronic help, which is most leagues. And neither replaces a coach or teammates who have watched you debate.

Related DebateLab guides

AI Debate Practice Platform AI Debate Case Generator with Citations Debate Rebuttal Practice & Argument Analyzer diff --git a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html index ebd30da38..05d3dcd1c 100644 --- a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html +++ b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html @@ -4,18 +4,18 @@ Online Debate Timer for Practice Rounds | DebateLab - + - + - +
diff --git a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py index b7653846a..4a620b125 100644 --- a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py +++ b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ {"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."])]}, + {"slug":"online-debate-timer","title":"Online Debate Timer for Practice Rounds | DebateLab","description":"Use DebateLab as an online debate timer for speech practice, 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."])]}, {"slug":"how-to-write-a-debate-case","title":"How to Write a Debate Case | {product} Guide","description":"Learn how to write a debate case with a clear motion analysis, burdens, contentions, warrants, evidence, impacts, and weighing using {product}.","eyebrow":"How-to guide","h1":"How to Write a Debate Case","lead":"Move from motion analysis to contentions, warrants, evidence, impacts, and weighing.","features":["Motion analysis","Contention structure","Weighing"],"sections":[("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 {product} to attack your own case. The strongest final version usually comes after finding the easiest rebuttals first."])]}, {"slug":"how-to-practice-rebuttals","title":"How to Practice Rebuttals for Debate | {product} Guide","description":"Learn how to practice debate rebuttals with drills for warrants, evidence quality, impact weighing, cross-examination, and speech collapse.","eyebrow":"How-to guide","h1":"How to Practice Debate Rebuttals","lead":"Build sharper responses by attacking warrants, evidence, impacts, and weighing one drill at a time.","features":["Rebuttal drills","Cross-ex questions","Collapse practice"],"sections":[("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."])]}, {"slug": "public-forum-debate", "title": "Public Forum Debate Prep with AI | {product}", "description": "Prepare for Public Forum debate with {product}: case construction, rebuttal drills, summary and final focus practice, crossfire prep, and evidence research.", "eyebrow": "Format guide", "h1": "Public Forum Debate Prep with AI", "lead": "Practice PF cases, rebuttals, crossfire, summary, and final focus with AI feedback.", "features": ["PF case building", "Crossfire prep", "Summary and final focus"], "sections": [["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.", "{product} helps you draft, attack, and refine PF cases before the round."]], ["Crossfire and rebuttal practice", ["Crossfire exposes weak warrants and missing evidence. Use {product} 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."]]]}, diff --git a/scripts/gsc_submit.py b/scripts/gsc_submit.py index 8d2409916..f17d1fb6b 100644 --- a/scripts/gsc_submit.py +++ b/scripts/gsc_submit.py @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ URLS = [ 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/ai-debate-practice', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-case-generator', + 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/ai-debate-case-generator', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-rebuttal-practice', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/ai-debate-coach', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-evidence-finder', @@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/online-debate-timer', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/how-to-write-a-debate-case', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/how-to-practice-rebuttals', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-weighing-guide', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/ai-tools-for-debate-students', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/wsdc-debate-practice', + 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/how-to-weigh-in-debate', + 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/best-ai-debate-tools', + 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/world-schools-debate', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/about-debatelab', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab', 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab-by-programcode', diff --git a/scripts/seo_guides.py b/scripts/seo_guides.py index bb03aed11..db2de4aac 100644 --- a/scripts/seo_guides.py +++ b/scripts/seo_guides.py @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ GUIDES = { "ai-debate-practice": { + "modified": "2026-10-21", "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."), @@ -17,7 +18,7 @@ ("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.", + "{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 argues the same motion you wrote your case for, 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.", @@ -47,14 +48,14 @@ {"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.", + "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 Current Debate's 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:", + "Keep a short log for each session on paper or in a document. 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.", @@ -76,6 +77,7 @@ ], }, "ai-debate-coach": { + "modified": "2026-10-21", "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."), @@ -124,7 +126,7 @@ "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.", + "When a coaching answer depends on facts, turn on Citations 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 that fit the question are used in its answers 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.", @@ -133,16 +135,17 @@ "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."), + ("Can the AI coach cite sources?", "Yes. Turn on Citations 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."), + ("How is this different from a general AI chatbot?", "The coach works inside one debate at a time, so it keeps your motion, debate settings and sources in context, and it is set up for debate questions rather than essays."), ], }, "ai-debate-case-generator": { + "modified": "2026-10-21", "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."), + ("Evidence leads", "Every draft is researched on the web and lists the sources it found. Check each one against the original before it goes on a card."), + ("Roles and length", "Pick your side and speaker role, then set the case length, the audience level and the tone of the draft."), ], "sections": [ ("What the case generator produces", [ @@ -160,8 +163,8 @@ {"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.", + "Choose your side and speaker role: introductor, R1, R2 or conclusor. Under More options, set the length (two, three or four contentions), the audience level and the tone. If you need a particular angle, for example a principled argument or an economic one, put it in the Current Debate's Instructions.", + "Generate the case. Generate researches the motion on the web every time, lists the sources it found under the draft, and saves the relevant ones to the debate's Library.", "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.", @@ -193,13 +196,13 @@ ]), ("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.", + "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. Leave the Current Debate's format on Custom and describe this split in its 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.", + "Set the Current Debate's format to British Parliamentary and name your team position in its Instructions; Generate's own role options follow the School 4-6-6-3 speakers. 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.", + "In LD, the framework section becomes your value and criterion. Check that every contention explicitly links back to the criterion; if one does not, add your criterion to the Current Debate's Instructions and regenerate the contentions. Prepare a short defence of the criterion itself, because the negative will often attack it first.", ]), ("Mistakes to avoid with generated cases", [ {"list": [ @@ -212,14 +215,14 @@ ], "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."), + ("Are the generated citations reliable?", "They are research leads. Every draft is researched on the web and lists the sources it found, and a contention that still needs evidence is marked Needs Source. Open every source, confirm the exact claim and record the full citation before using it."), + ("Which debate formats does the generator support?", "Set the Current Debate's format to British Parliamentary, Policy, Classroom or Custom, and Generate reads it along with the debate's Instructions. Generate's own speaker roles (introductor, R1, R2 and conclusor) follow the School 4-6-6-3 format. 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": { - "modified": "2026-10-20", + "modified": "2026-10-21", "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."), @@ -282,7 +285,7 @@ "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.", + "{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 its answers, 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.", ]), ], @@ -296,9 +299,10 @@ ], }, "debate-rebuttal-practice": { + "modified": "2026-10-21", "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."), + ("Build targeted blocks", "Each weakness comes with why it is weak, how the other side will attack it and a stronger version. Turn that into a short block; the analysis stays 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": [ @@ -322,7 +326,7 @@ "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.", + "Your Attack analyses stay 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": [ @@ -768,6 +772,7 @@ ], }, "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": { + "modified": "2026-10-21", "features": [ ("A general assistant", "ChatGPT can brainstorm, explain, draft and revise on any subject, including debate."), ("A debate workspace", "{product} organises prep around one motion at a time, with structured cases, an AI opponent, a timer and judged practice rounds."), @@ -789,13 +794,13 @@ ]), ("What a debate workspace adds", [ {"h3": "One motion, one place"}, - "In {product}, everything belongs to a Current Debate: the motion, the Library sources you have added, generated cases, Attack analyses, practice rounds and debriefs. Each tool reads the same context, so you never paste the motion and your research into a new conversation.", + "In {product}, everything belongs to a Current Debate: the motion, the Library sources you have added, generated cases, Attack analyses, practice rounds and debriefs. The prep tools read that context, so you never paste the motion and your research into a new conversation.", {"h3": "Structured output"}, "Generated cases always have the same parts: thesis, framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it. Attack always returns ranked weaknesses that quote the attacked words, with a response to say in round, cross-examination questions and a weighing analysis. Fixed structure makes the output easier to check and to turn into speeches.", {"h3": "Timed practice rounds"}, "Sparring runs full rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, with each speech timed, and ends with a verdict that names the reason for the decision. Crossfire drills cross-examination in either direction. A speech timer covers Standard, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and Policy speech orders.", {"h3": "Sources you control"}, - "Sources you add to the Library and mark active are used across the tools for that debate. Ask can answer with citations, and Factoids researches a single claim. Evidence still needs checking against the original, as with any AI tool.", + "Sources you add to the Library and mark active are given to the prep tools for that debate, which use the ones that fit each request. Ask can answer with citations, and Factoids researches a single claim. Evidence still needs checking against the original, as with any AI tool.", ]), ("Worked example: the same task in both tools", [ {"example": {"title": "Task: prepare to answer the opposition on This house would make voting compulsory", "rows": [ @@ -827,7 +832,7 @@ ], }, "online-debate-timer": { - "modified": "2026-10-20", + "modified": "2026-10-21", "features": [ ("Format presets", "Speech orders and times for Standard 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and Policy, so each speech starts with the right clock."), ("Signals you can hear", "One beep at one minute remaining and two beeps at time up, so you can practise without watching the screen."), @@ -872,7 +877,7 @@ ], }, "argument-flowchart": { - "modified": "2026-10-20", + "modified": "2026-10-21", "features": [ ("Visual clash maps", "Put the thesis, each argument, the attacks on it and your rebuttals on one canvas, so you can see where the round will be decided."), ("Link and strength tracking", "Mark each argument strong, moderate or weak, and connect nodes with support, attack and rebuttal links."), @@ -884,7 +889,7 @@ "A map also shows what a written case hides. Two contentions that rely on the same assumption look independent on paper; on a map they share a node, and one good response takes out both.", ]), ("How the {product} flowchart works", [ - "A new flowchart starts with a thesis and three example arguments you can edit or delete. Each node has a label, a description and a type:", + "A new flowchart starts with a thesis, three example arguments, an opponent attack and a rebuttal, all of which you can edit or delete. Each node has a label, a description and a type:", {"list": [ "Thesis: the position your side has to prove.", "Argument: a contention, rated strong, moderate or weak.", @@ -900,7 +905,7 @@ "Add each contention as an argument node and link it to the thesis. Rate it honestly; a weak node is one to fix or cut.", "For each contention, add the strongest attack you expect. If you have generated a case, the predicted opponent case is the place to find them.", "Add your rebuttal to each attack. Where you cannot write one, the map has found your gap.", - "Mark weighing at each clash: a note on why your side of that clash matters more.", + "Mark weighing at each clash in a node's description: why your side of that clash matters more.", ]}, "Build the opposing case the same way on a second chart. Most rounds turn on two or three clashes, and the two maps side by side show which ones.", ]), @@ -1143,7 +1148,7 @@ ], }, "debate-evidence-finder": { - "modified": "2026-10-20", + "modified": "2026-10-21", "features": [ ("Evidence leads", "Research directions for a claim: the kinds of sources that could support it and searches you can run to confirm it."), ("Citation checks", "A checklist for each source before it goes on a card: author, date, method and whether the quote says what you claim."), @@ -1162,7 +1167,7 @@ {"steps": [ "Give Factoids a single statement from your case. It researches that statement and returns supporting factoids with citations, context and suggestions for how to use them.", "Generate a case. {product} researches the motion before it writes, so the draft comes with sources for its claims.", - "Save the sources you trust to the Library. Active Library sources ground the other tools for that debate, so later answers draw on material you have checked.", + "Save the sources you trust to the Library. Active Library sources that fit a request are used by the other prep tools for that debate, so later answers draw on material you have checked.", "Ask for counter-evidence too. Attack runs research on an argument and can point to sources that cut against it, which tells you what the other side may read.", ]}, ]),