diff --git a/docs/operations.md b/docs/operations.md index 5e3bf019d..525be4028 100644 --- a/docs/operations.md +++ b/docs/operations.md @@ -60,9 +60,9 @@ The free tools under `/tools` ([`src/pages/tools/`](../src/pages/tools/)) are pr [`scripts/check-site.mjs`](../scripts/check-site.mjs) runs next and fails the build when an internal link, a `#fragment`, a sitemap URL or an `llms.txt` URL does not resolve (it applies the `vercel.json` redirects and rewrites), when JSON-LD does not parse or carries HTML entities, when an indexed page other than `/terms`, `/privacy`, and `/expocit/sources` lacks its question H2 (`#short-answer`) as the first H2, when a page's first heading is not its H1 or a heading skips a level (H1 to H3), or when an image has no alt text, a button has no name or a form field has no label. -The guide pages in `public//index.html` are generated, not hand-edited: run `python3 scripts/generate_seo_content.py` and commit its output. Short pages live in its `PAGES` list; pages with long-form copy, their own highlight-card descriptions, and their own FAQs (which also feed the page's FAQPage JSON-LD) live in [`scripts/seo_guides.py`](../scripts/seo_guides.py). Keep `PAGES` in order, because each page's related-guide links are picked by position. A guide entry can set its own `modified` date, which overrides `CONTENT_DATE` for that page alone. Pages that show the shared `FAQS` are dated no earlier than `FAQS_DATE`, so move it when those questions change. +The guide pages in `public//index.html` are generated, not hand-edited: run `python3 scripts/generate_seo_content.py` and commit its output. Short pages live in its `PAGES` list; pages with long-form copy, their own highlight-card descriptions, and their own FAQs (which also feed the page's FAQPage JSON-LD) live in [`scripts/seo_guides.py`](../scripts/seo_guides.py). Keep `PAGES` in order, because each page's related-guide links are picked by position. A guide entry can set a later `modified` date for that page alone; no page is dated earlier than `CONTENT_DATE`, which covers the copy every guide shares. Sections hold paragraphs and `h3`, `steps`, `list`, `table` and `example` blocks; paragraphs, list items and table cells can hold Markdown-style links to a site path or, for a primary source, an `https://` URL. Pages that show the shared `FAQS` are dated no earlier than `FAQS_DATE`, so move it when those questions change. -Every guide opens with the reader's main question as its first H2 and an answer of at most 100 words, kept in [`scripts/seo_answers.py`](../scripts/seo_answers.py); the generator refuses a page without one or with a longer answer. Each guide shows visible "Published" and "Updated" dates (`PUBLISHED_DATE` or a `published` key, and the `modified` date) that match its Article JSON-LD. Prices and plan facts are stated "as of" the month in `factsCheckedOn` in `src/config/site.json`; move that date when you recheck them, and the generated About line on every guide, `llms.txt` and the landing page follow. Copy in `seo_guides.py` and `seo_answers.py` that names the month itself (prices and competitor facts) needs the same edit: search those files for "As of". The generator also writes `public/llms.txt`, the plain summary for AI agents. `public/robots.txt` allows AI crawlers by name in their own group, which repeats the private-route rules because a crawler that matches a named group ignores `*`. +Every guide opens with the reader's main question as its first H2 and an answer of at most 100 words, kept in [`scripts/seo_answers.py`](../scripts/seo_answers.py); the generator refuses a page without one or with a longer answer. Each guide shows visible "Published" and "Updated" dates (`PUBLISHED_DATE` or a `published` key, and the `modified` date) that match its Article JSON-LD. Prices and plan facts are stated "as of" the month in `factsCheckedOn` in `src/config/site.json`; move that date when you recheck them, and the pricing page's About block, `llms.txt` and the landing page follow. Every other guide has a one-line About that links to the landing page and pricing instead of repeating the plan facts. Copy in `seo_guides.py` and `seo_answers.py` that names the month itself (prices and competitor facts) needs the same edit: search those files for "As of". The generator also writes `public/llms.txt`, the plain summary for AI agents. `public/robots.txt` allows AI crawlers by name in their own group, which repeats the private-route rules because a crawler that matches a named group ignores `*`. To retire a guide, delete its `PAGES` entry and its `public//` folder (the generator never deletes), add its redirects to `vercel.json`, and repoint any link to it. Two guides that answer the same search should become one page, not two thin ones. diff --git a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html index 36025f782..4dbe4d123 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ - + - +
@@ -31,18 +31,18 @@
-
Tool guide

AI Debate Case Generator with Citations

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab
+
Tool guide

AI Debate Case Generator with Citations

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab

Can an AI debate case generator write a case I can actually use?

It can write a usable draft, not a finished case. A good generator gives you a thesis, a framework, contentions with warrants and impacts, the case the other side is likely to run, and counters to it. Treat its citations as research leads: open every source, confirm the exact claim and record the full citation. The judgement calls, such as which contention to cut and where to pre-empt the opposition, stay with you. Rewrite the case in your own words, because judges can hear when you are reading a draft for the first time.

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.

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 a3cdeea25..11e33c6ed 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ - + - +
@@ -31,18 +31,18 @@
-
Feature guide

Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab
+
Feature guide

Ask an AI Debate Coach for Round-Ready Prep

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab

Can an AI debate coach actually help you prepare?

Yes, as a partner for thinking problems through: burdens, clash, weighing, speech structure and why a practice speech did not land. It works best with specific questions that name the format, your side and speaker role, what is already on the table and what you are stuck on. Vague questions get generic answers. Treat any sources it cites as leads to check. An AI coach has not watched you speak and does not know your judges or your partner, so take its conclusions to your human coach or team and let them correct what does not fit.

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 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.

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 fd244a00f..8eca4640c 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ - + - +
@@ -31,18 +31,18 @@
-
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.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab
+
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.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab

Can practising debate against an AI actually make you better?

Yes, if it shortens the loop of giving a speech, finding what failed, fixing one thing and giving it again. A useful session needs a motion, a side, real speech times, an opponent that responds to what you said and a verdict that names why you won or lost. DebateLab's Sparring runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds this way. AI practice adds repetitions between team practices but does not replace them: judge adaptation, delivery under pressure and strategic judgement still develop fastest with a coach and real rounds.

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 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.

Frequently asked questions

Which formats can I spar against the AI in?

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

Can I give my practice speeches out loud?

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

How often should I practise against an AI opponent?

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

Does AI practice replace a coach or real rounds?

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

Are my practice rounds private?

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

- +
diff --git a/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html b/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html index 5545518ac..391c90bdd 100644 --- a/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html @@ -17,12 +17,12 @@ - + - +
@@ -31,13 +31,13 @@
-
Tool guide

AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab
+
Tool guide

AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateLab

Is an AI rebuttal generator worth using for debate prep?

It is worth it for preparation when the output is structured for a round: the exact words being attacked, the broken link, a response you can say, a cross-ex question and the missing weighing. A general chatbot tends to write a counter-essay instead, which is rarely usable. Run it on opposing cases and on your own case. It cannot hear how your opponent framed an argument or know what a judge will find persuasive, and most leagues restrict AI during rounds. Rewrite responses in your own words and check any evidence it cites.

Weaknesses ranked by damage

Attack quotes the exact words it is targeting, names the broken link and orders the weaknesses from critical to minor.

Responses you can say

Each weakness comes with one to three sentences written to be spoken in round, not a description of what you could argue.

Cross-ex questions and weighing

Get questions tied to each weakness, a check for fallacies and an analysis of the weighing the argument is missing.

What a good rebuttal generator should give you

Generic AI tools answer the request to rebut an argument by writing a counter-essay: a few paragraphs on why the other side is wrong. That is rarely usable. In a round you need to know which part of the argument to attack, what the flaw is called, and what to say in the next forty seconds.

Attack in DebateLab is built around that need. Paste an argument or a full case and it returns a structured critique. Every weakness has to do three jobs: quote the exact words it attacks, explain why the link fails and why that matters for the ballot, and give a response you can say word for word. If the argument has fewer real weaknesses, it returns fewer rather than inventing problems.

What one Attack analysis contains

  • An overall assessment: a score out of 100, a short summary and what the argument does well, so you know which parts not to waste time on.
  • Weaknesses, usually three to six, each marked critical, major or minor and labelled as evidential, logical or structural.
  • For each weakness: the quoted words, why the link is weak (missing warrant, no evidence, no link, non-unique, turned or outweighed), and a response to say in round.
  • Fallacies detected, with where they appear and how to call them out without sounding like a textbook.
  • Cross-examination questions, each tied to one weakness and written so that a short honest answer exposes the gap.
  • A weighing analysis: the weighing the argument relies on, the comparisons it never makes, and how to out-weigh it.

Attack also runs web research on the argument, so responses can point to counter-evidence. Treat any evidence it mentions as a lead and check the original source before you use it.

Settings that change the output

Attack intensity

Mild gives constructive criticism, useful when you are checking your own case. Moderate balances strengths and weaknesses. Ruthless looks hardest for anything a strong opponent could exploit, which is what you want when preparing against an opposing case.

Judge paradigm

Logic-Heavy prioritises broken reasoning and missing warrants. Values-Focused looks at framework and principle, which suits Lincoln-Douglas and principled motions. Policy/Impact concentrates on links, probability and the size of impacts, which suits policy-style motions and Public Forum.

Fallacies and weighing

Both checks are on by default. Turn fallacy detection off when you only want substantive responses; keep weighing analysis on almost always, because unweighed rebuttal is the most common reason good responses do not win rounds.

Worked example: one argument through Attack

Motion: This house would tax sugary drinks

Argument pasted: A sugar tax reduces consumption, because higher prices make people buy less. Lower consumption means less obesity, which saves lives and reduces the burden on public health systems.

Critical weakness, logical: Quoted: lower consumption means less obesity. The argument assumes people who buy fewer sugary drinks do not replace those calories with other foods. Without that warrant, the impact does not follow from the mechanism.

Response to say: Even if people buy fewer fizzy drinks, they can get the same sugar from sweets, juice and snacks that are not taxed. Cutting one source of calories is not the same as cutting calories.

Major weakness, evidential: Quoted: saves lives. The argument gives no estimate of how much consumption falls or how that translates into health outcomes, so the judge cannot weigh the size of the benefit.

Cross-ex question: If someone stops buying a sugary drink but buys a chocolate bar instead, has the tax reduced their sugar intake?

Weighing gap: The argument never compares its health benefit with the cost to low-income households, who spend a larger share of their income on these drinks. That comparison is your weighing.

The useful part is not that the analysis disagrees with the argument. It identifies the one assumption the argument cannot survive without, gives you a sentence to attack it, and sets up a cross-ex question that makes the opponent concede it before your speech.

From generated output to a rebuttal you own

  1. Start from the right input. Use the opponent case predicted when you generated your own case, an argument you heard in a previous round, or your own case when you want to find its weak points first.
  2. Read the critical weaknesses and pick one. In a short speech, one well-explained weakness beats four rushed ones.
  3. Rewrite the suggested response in your own words. Keep the structure (quote, flaw, response, why it matters) and cut anything you would not naturally say.
  4. Check any evidence it relies on against the original source.
  5. Time the response. Most single responses should fit in forty-five seconds.
  6. Import the cross-examination questions into Crossfire and practise asking them against the AI, which answers from the opposing side.
  7. Keep the analysis in your Current Debate so the block sits next to the case it answers.

Using generated rebuttals by format

Public Forum (PF)

Use Policy/Impact for most PF resolutions. Prepare the response and the cross-ex question together, because PF crossfire is where you get the opponent to commit to the assumption you attack in rebuttal.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

Run Values-Focused on the negative case to find where its contentions fail to link to its own criterion. That gap often lets you win under their framework as well as yours.

World Schools and British Parliamentary

Motions are often released shortly before the round, so use Attack in practice on likely arguments for motion areas you expect, and build a bank of responses to the reasoning that recurs across motions, such as slippery slopes, unproven behaviour change and ignored alternatives.

What it cannot do

Attack responds to the text you give it. It cannot hear how your opponent actually framed an argument, and it cannot tell you what a particular judge will find persuasive. Most leagues also do not allow internet or AI tools during rounds, so it is a preparation tool: build and practise the blocks before the tournament, then adapt them by ear in the round.

Frequently asked questions

What does the AI rebuttal generator produce?

A ranked list of weaknesses, each quoting the attacked words with an explanation and a response to say in round, plus detected fallacies, cross-examination questions and a weighing analysis.

Can I use it on my own case?

Yes, and you should. Set the intensity to Mild or Moderate to find your weak points before an opponent does, then fix them or prepare an answer.

Is it allowed to use an AI rebuttal generator in a debate round?

Most leagues restrict or ban internet and AI use during rounds. Check your league's rules and use the tool to prepare blocks beforehand.

Are the rebuttals backed by evidence?

Attack runs web research and can point to counter-evidence. Treat anything it cites as a lead and check the original source before using it.

How is this different from asking a chatbot to rebut an argument?

The output is structured for a round: each response targets quoted words, names the broken link and comes with a cross-ex question and weighing, instead of a general essay against the other side.

- +