diff --git a/docs/operations.md b/docs/operations.md index a8109bb3..dc35916b 100644 --- a/docs/operations.md +++ b/docs/operations.md @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Vercel builds and serves the frontend from the Git repository. A push to `main` - rewrites of the app routes (`/app`, `/login`, `/share`, `/expocit/sources`) to `app-shell.html`; any other path that is not a file gets `404.html` with a real 404 status. `/expocit/sources` is also prerendered, and the filesystem is served before rewrites, so that file is what visitors and crawlers get. The rewrite remains for a build that did not emit it; - `trailingSlash: false`, which 308-redirects `/app/settings/` to `/app/settings` before routing, since rewrite and redirect sources match exactly; - 301 redirects from the retired brand pages (`/debatelab`, `/debatelab-by-programcode`, and the rest) to `/`; +- 301 redirects from the renamed comparison and pricing pages (`/debatelab-pricing`, `/debatelab-vs-chatgpt`, `/debatelab-vs-debateclub`, `/debatelab-vs-windebate`, also under `/hu/` or `/es/` and with a trailing slash) to their `/debateowl-*` pages in one hop, query kept; - 301 redirects from retired guide slugs to the guide that replaced them, such as `/debate-weighing-guide` to `/how-to-weigh-in-debate`. The `trailingSlash` 308 runs first, so `/debate-weighing-guide/` reaches the same page in two permanent hops and needs no rule of its own; - revalidating cache headers (`public, max-age=0, must-revalidate`, without `no-store`, so a document can enter the back/forward cache) for `/`, `index.html`, `app-shell.html`, and `theme-init.js`. `sw.js` stays `no-store` so a new service worker is not stuck in the HTTP cache. Hashed `/assets/` are immutable. The unhashed images in `public/` (the favicons, `apple-touch-icon.png`, the `icon-*.png` manifest icons, `hero-visual.jpg`, `placeholder.svg`) are cached for 30 days; the test reads `public/`, so a new icon file must be added to that rule. Jam's capture iframe is removed on `pagehide` (never via `unload`) so that cross-origin frame cannot veto the cache; - `noindex` headers for `/app`, `/login`, `/share` and `/embed/debate-timer`. The app shell's robots meta is `noindex, nofollow`, the same policy. Public pages, including the prerendered `/expocit/sources`, are `index, follow`. A route deletes the platform `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` header on HTML responses and leaves it on static assets; diff --git a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html index c14a99d9..0896f695 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-case-generator/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
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 DebateOwl
+
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 DebateOwl

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 3296898d..9d21e4e3 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-coach/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
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 DebateOwl
+
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 DebateOwl

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 DebateOwl 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.

+

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 DebateOwl 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 3342a2bd..796690d9 100644 --- a/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html +++ b/public/ai-debate-practice/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
DebateOwl 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 DebateOwl
+
DebateOwl 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 DebateOwl

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. DebateOwl'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.

DebateOwl 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.

AI vs traditional prep

AI and traditional preparation are good at different parts of the work. AI is fast at structure; reading, coaching and real rounds are where judgement comes from. Most strong debaters use both and give each the tasks it does well.

TaskAI does it wellTraditional prep does it better
First case outlineDrafts claims, warrants and a predicted opponent case in minutesChoosing which outline fits your team and your circuit
Rebuttal blocksLists likely arguments and first-draft answersTesting answers against opponents you have actually met
ResearchSuggests evidence leads and search directionsReading the original source, checking dates and context
Practice roundsA responsive opponent at any hour, at real speech timesUnpredictable opponents, panels and live crossfire
FeedbackA consistent verdict that names a reasonA coach who knows your habits and the judges you will face

A simple split works for most teams: use AI to get from a blank page to a first draft and for extra practice volume, then spend coaching time and team practice on strategy, delivery and the arguments the AI draft got wrong. Never read AI-suggested evidence in round until you have opened the original source yourself.

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.

Is AI debate prep better than traditional prep?

Neither is better on its own. AI is faster at outlines, block drafts and evidence leads; reading sources, coaching and real rounds build the judgement AI drafts lack.

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 d859bd03..78aa8b44 100644 --- a/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html +++ b/public/ai-rebuttal-generator/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Tool guide

AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Tool guide

AI Rebuttal Generator for Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

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 DebateOwl 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.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html index 26c3202e..237dccc2 100644 --- a/public/argument-flowchart/index.html +++ b/public/argument-flowchart/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Flowing guide

Map the Clash With an Argument Flowchart

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Flowing guide

Map the Clash With an Argument Flowchart

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

When is an argument flowchart useful for debate prep?

It is useful before and after a round, not during one. A flowchart maps your thesis, your arguments, the attacks on them and your rebuttals, so you can see which link breaks a chain and where two contentions rely on the same assumption. Build it from the motion outward, add the strongest attack to each contention, and note the weighing at each clash. During the round itself, a written flow on paper or a laptop is faster than any canvas, so keep your in-round notes there and use the map to plan and review.

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 DebateOwl 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.

Frequently asked questions

What is an argument flowchart in debate?

A diagram of a case: the thesis, the arguments that support it, the attacks on them and the responses, joined by links that show what depends on what.

Is a flowchart the same as flowing?

No. Flowing is note-taking during a round, speech by speech. A flowchart is a map you build before or after a round to plan and review the clash.

Can I save and share a flowchart?

Yes. Save it to the Current Debate to load it later, or export it as a PNG image to share with a partner or coach.

How many arguments should a flowchart have?

As many as the case has, but the useful part is the two or three clashes that decide the round. If the map is too crowded to read, collapse it to those.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html index c862255d..d6127bd2 100644 --- a/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html +++ b/public/best-ai-debate-tools/index.html @@ -17,34 +17,34 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Comparison

Best AI Debate Tools Compared

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Comparison

Best AI Debate Tools Compared

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

Which AI debate tool should you use?

It depends on the job. For brainstorming or learning a topic, a general chatbot such as ChatGPT is flexible. For motion-by-motion prep plus timed practice rounds that end in a verdict, a dedicated platform such as DebateOwl fits. As of October 2026, debatelab.ai, a separate product, says it is free and runs World Schools and Asian Parliamentary practice, and WinDebate adds round replay and progress tracking from $19.99/month. Give each tool the same motion and tasks before you decide.

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 DebateOwl fits

DebateOwl 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.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best AI tool for debate?

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

Is a general chatbot good enough for debate prep?

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

Are free AI debate tools enough?

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

Can I use AI tools during a debate round?

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

What are the alternatives to DebateOwl?

General chatbots, AI research assistants, other dedicated debate platforms, and simple practice utilities such as timers and flowing templates. Run the one-hour test above on DebateOwl and on each alternative you are considering.

How should I compare AI debate tools fairly?

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

- -
- + diff --git a/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html b/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html index 2b07c024..cc40f59d 100644 --- a/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html +++ b/public/british-parliamentary-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

British Parliamentary Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you prepare for British Parliamentary debate?

Practise all four positions, because you learn yours only with the draw. Opening teams need a clear model and two strong arguments. Closing teams need an extension that their opening half did not run, so prepare several candidates and choose during the debate. Every speech is seven minutes, preparation is fifteen minutes after the motion with no internet, and points of information run between the first and sixth minute. Judges rank all four teams, so weigh against the team on your own bench as well as the other side.

Eight speakers, four teams

What the Prime Minister through the Opposition Whip each owe the debate, shown on one practice motion.

Finding an extension

Three ways a closing team finds material its opening half has not used, and why a thin one loses to the opening.

POIs and protected time

Offering and taking points of information between the first and sixth minute, under fifteen seconds each.

The round under the WUDC manual

British Parliamentary (BP) is the format of the World Universities Debating Championship and many university and school competitions. Four teams of two debate one motion: Opening Government (OG), Opening Opposition (OO), Closing Government (CG) and Closing Opposition (CO). Teams get 15 minutes to prepare after the motion is released, with no internet and no help from anyone but their partner. The WUDC Debating & Judging Manual sets this order:

SpeechTeamTime
Prime Minister (PM)Opening Government7 minutes
Leader of the Opposition (LO)Opening Opposition7 minutes
Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)Opening Government7 minutes
Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)Opening Opposition7 minutes
Member of Government (MG)Closing Government7 minutes
Member of Opposition (MO)Closing Opposition7 minutes
Government Whip (GW)Closing Government7 minutes
Opposition Whip (OW)Closing Opposition7 minutes

Points of information can be offered between the end of the first minute and the end of the sixth; the first and last minutes are protected. Signals sound at 1:00, 6:00 and 7:00, and judges disregard anything said after 7:15. The manual calls the member speakers Government Member and Opposition Member; the timer uses MG and MO. The free debate timer with the BP preset knocks at each signal.

At the end, the judges rank the four teams from first to fourth. There are no draws, and a team can beat the other team on its own side of the table. At WUDC, a first place is worth three team points, second two, third one and fourth none.

Worked example: all eight speakers on one motion

Practice motion: This House would give each city neighbourhood a binding vote on new chain stores opening there

PM: Defines the model: a chain is a business with ten or more outlets, a planning application triggers a vote of the ward's residents, and a majority against blocks the permit. First argument: residents bear the costs of a changed high street, so they should decide.

LO: Rebuts the model's fairness, since turnout in local votes skews toward older homeowners. Argues the vote protects incumbent businesses and raises prices for the residents least able to pay.

DPM: Answers the turnout point and adds a second argument: independent shops keep more spending in the area and give a neighbourhood a reason to visit.

DLO: Rebuts the local spending claim and adds that blocked chains move to the next ward, so the policy shifts costs rather than removing them.

MG extension: The vote changes chains' behaviour before any ballot. To win, a chain offers local hiring, smaller formats or design concessions, so most neighbourhoods get better chain stores rather than none.

MO extension: Distribution across the city: wealthier wards organise and vote chains out, poorer wards do not, so low-wage retail and its traffic concentrate where residents already have least say.

GW: Organises the debate into two clashes, local control and who pays, shows why the government bench wins both, and argues that the MG's negotiation mechanism is the strongest material on that bench. No new arguments.

OW: Does the same for opposition, arguing the MO's distribution point outweighs because it applies citywide. No new arguments.

Both extensions work because they move the debate. The MG adds a mechanism the opening did not consider, and the MO adds a stakeholder comparison across the whole city. A closing team that only explained the opening's arguments better would struggle to rank above that opening.

How to find an extension

The manual defines an extension as anything that side of the debate has not yet said, but a closing team is credited only for what goes beyond its opening half. In 15 minutes of prep, a closing team should prepare two or three candidate extensions and choose once the opening speeches are known.

  • A new mechanism: how the policy changes behaviour before or after it takes effect, as in the MG example.
  • A new stakeholder or scale: a group, a region or a time frame the opening half did not weigh.
  • A new comparison: a reason the clash the opening half won matters more than the clash it lost.

Check every candidate against the opening's material during their speeches. If OG or OO already ran your best idea, drop it and use the next one; repeating the opening is the most common reason a closing team ranks below it.

Points of information

A POI lasts up to fifteen seconds and can be a question or a comment. The manual says teams should take at least one POI per speaker and encourages three across the team, including one from the team on the diagonal. Offer them often, keep them short, and aim at the one link a speech depends on. When you take one, answer in a sentence and go back to your structure.

Common BP mistakes

  • An opening government model so vague that the opposition can define the debate instead.
  • A closing team that contradicts its opening half. The manual calls this knifing and allows it only in rare cases.
  • A whip speech that adds new arguments. Judges ignore them, and the time is lost.
  • Refusing every POI, which reads as avoiding the strongest objection.
  • Weighing only against the team opposite, when the ranking also depends on the team on your own bench.

A 15-minute BP drill

  1. One minute: pick a motion from the free debate motion generator and assign yourself closing government.
  2. Five minutes: write the two arguments you expect opening government to run.
  3. Five minutes: write two extensions that neither argument covers, one mechanism and one stakeholder.
  4. Three minutes: deliver the strongest extension out loud against the BP preset, offering yourself one POI at the two-minute mark.
  5. One minute: write the sentence a whip would use to say why that extension beats the opening's material.

Brainstorm in DebateOwl maps angles for both benches of a motion, which helps with the five-minute extension step, and Case Attacker tests whether an extension depends on a weak link. Sparring does not run BP rounds.

Frequently asked questions

How long is each speech in British Parliamentary debate?

Seven minutes. The first and last minutes are protected from points of information, and judges disregard material after seven minutes and fifteen seconds.

How much preparation time do teams get?

Fifteen minutes after the motion is released. Partners may confer with each other, but not with coaches or anyone else, and may not use the internet.

Can a whip bring new arguments?

No. A whip may add new rebuttal, examples and explanation of existing arguments, but judges ignore new arguments.

Can a closing team beat its opening half?

Yes, if its exclusive contribution is more persuasive than what the opening half added. A minimal extension usually ranks below the opening.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/congress-debate/index.html b/public/congress-debate/index.html index ea183033..fe025706 100644 --- a/public/congress-debate/index.html +++ b/public/congress-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

Congressional Debate Prep with AI

Draft congress speeches, practice questioning, and prepare crystallization.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

Congressional Debate Prep with AI

Draft congress speeches, practice questioning, and prepare crystallization.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you prepare for Congressional debate?

Read every bill on the docket and prepare short arguments on both sides of each, so you can speak whenever the presiding officer calls you. Speeches are up to three minutes, so plan one or two points that answer a named earlier speaker and add something new. Prepare questions as well, since scorers count how you ask and answer them. Toward the end of a bill's debate, a crystallization speech that explains who won the key clashes is often the strongest speech in the cycle.

Speech and question times

Three-minute speeches, two minutes of questions after the first two and one minute after the rest.

Precedence and recency

How the presiding officer chooses speakers, and what that means for when to stand.

A worked example

The authorship, first negative, a mid-cycle speech and a crystallization on one original practice bill.

How a session runs

Congressional Debate models a legislature. A chamber of students debates bills and resolutions written by schools, one at a time, and a presiding officer elected by the chamber runs the floor. Scorers evaluate every speech, including how the speaker answers questions, and a parliamentarian advises the chair on procedure. The NSDA High School Unified Manual sets a session at three hours or more, with 18 to 20 students as the optimum and no more than 30. Each new session elects a presiding officer and resets the seating chart and precedence.

SpeechSpeaking timeQuestioning after it
Authorship or sponsorship (introduces the legislation)Up to 3 minutes2 minutes
First negativeUp to 3 minutes2 minutes
Every later speech, alternating affirmative and negativeUp to 3 minutes1 minute

A student from the school that wrote the legislation gives the authorship. If no one from that school is in the chamber, another student can sponsor it. NSDA district and national tournaments use direct questioning, where each questioner gets up to 30 seconds of back-and-forth with the speaker. Under traditional questioning, each questioner asks one brief question at a time. The free debate timer has no Congress preset, but its custom format can hold three-minute speeches and questioning blocks.

Precedence and recency

When more than one student stands, the presiding officer first picks students who have not spoken that session, then those who have spoken fewer times, then those who spoke least recently. NSDA district and national tournaments preset a randomized recency order before the session starts. Because of that rule, your first speech matters most: the chamber decides early which bills get a full debate, and later speeches compete with every student who has not spoken yet.

Worked example: one bill through the cycle

Practice bill: A Bill to Require Federal Agencies to Publish Plain-Language Summaries of New Regulations

Authorship: States the problem, that people affected by a rule often cannot tell what it requires, then walks through the bill's sections: a one-page summary for each final rule, a readability standard and a date it takes effect. Closes with the strongest impact.

First negative: Accepts the goal and attacks the mechanism: a summary that differs from the rule's legal text invites confusion and lawsuits over which one governs.

Mid-cycle affirmative: Names the first negative and answers the conflict point directly: the bill can state that the legal text controls. Adds new analysis on who benefits most, small businesses without legal staff.

Direct question to that speaker: If the legal text controls, what happens to a business that relied on the summary in good faith?

Crystallization, late in the cycle: Names the two clashes the chamber has debated, legal certainty and access for small businesses, says which speakers carried each, and explains why the affirmative side wins both. No new arguments.

The mid-cycle speech earns its score by refuting a named speaker and adding one new point. A speech that repeats the authorship's arguments, however polished, gives scorers little to reward.

What each kind of speech is for

Authorship and sponsorship

Explain the problem, what the legislation does section by section, and why it solves the problem. Two minutes of questions follow, so prepare for the obvious objections before you stand.

Refutation speeches

From the first negative onward, a strong speech answers a named earlier speaker and adds something new: a new argument, new evidence or a new stakeholder. Prepare two or three short points per side for each bill on the docket so you can speak whenever the floor opens.

Crystallization

Late in the debate on a bill, a crystallization speech summarizes the main clashes, credits the speakers who carried each one and explains which side wins. It works only when the chamber has debated the bill long enough for clear clashes to exist.

Common Congress mistakes

  • Rehashing the arguments earlier speakers made, without naming them or adding anything.
  • Writing one speech per bill and having nothing to say when the debate moves on.
  • Asking questions that are speeches in disguise. Presiding officers discourage statements during questioning.
  • Giving a crystallization speech too early, before the debate has clashes to summarize.
  • Speaking on the wrong side when called. NSDA rules deduct at least three points for it.

A 15-minute Congress drill

  1. Three minutes: read one bill from your docket and write the problem, the mechanism and one objection in a sentence each.
  2. Four minutes: write a mid-cycle negative speech outline that names an imaginary affirmative speaker and answers their point.
  3. Three minutes: deliver it against a three-minute timer.
  4. Three minutes: write three direct-questioning questions you would ask the authorship, each under ten seconds to say.
  5. Two minutes: write the opening two sentences of a crystallization for the same bill.

Ask Coach in DebateOwl can explain a bill's likely objections, and Factoids finds evidence leads with citations to check before you quote them. Crossfire drills cross-examination, which is close practice for direct questioning. Sparring does not run Congress sessions.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a Congressional Debate speech?

Up to three minutes. The authorship or sponsorship and the first negative speech are each followed by two minutes of questioning, and every later speech by one minute.

What is the difference between authorship and sponsorship?

An authorship is given by a student from the school that wrote the legislation. A sponsorship is the same introductory speech given by another student when no author is present.

What is direct questioning?

A questioning method in which the presiding officer recognizes each questioner for up to 30 seconds of back-and-forth with the speaker. NSDA district and national tournaments use it.

When should I give a crystallization speech?

Late in the debate on a bill, once there are clear clashes to summarize. It names those clashes and explains which side won them, without new arguments.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-clash-points/index.html b/public/debate-clash-points/index.html index 00d84e28..ffbdc131 100644 --- a/public/debate-clash-points/index.html +++ b/public/debate-clash-points/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Strategy guide

Clash and Collapse: Find the Key Argument and Go All In

Map every disagreement, pick the one the judge has to resolve, and spend your last speeches there.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Strategy guide

Clash and Collapse: Find the Key Argument and Go All In

Map every disagreement, pick the one the judge has to resolve, and spend your last speeches there.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you find the key clash in a debate and collapse to it?

List every open disagreement on your flow, then ask of each one whether winning it alone wins you the round and whether losing it loses you the round. The clash that passes both tests, and where your warrant is stronger, is the one to go for. In your last speeches, say plainly that you are going for it, respond to the opponent's attacks on it and weigh it against their best point. Drop the rest, unless an argument has been turned against you, which you still have to answer.

Map the clashes

List every point where the two sides disagree, and sort out direct clash from arguments that only pass each other.

Choose the deciding clash

Four questions that tell you which disagreement wins the round if you win it, and which you can afford to lose.

Collapse cleanly

Drop the rest on purpose, say so, and use the time you saved on weighing.

What counts as a clash

A clash is a point where both sides make claims that cannot both be true, or that pull the judge in opposite directions. It is not the same as two arguments on the same topic. If the proposition says a policy raises test scores and the opposition says it hurts student wellbeing, those arguments can both be true; until someone compares them, they pass each other and the judge has to do the comparing.

Clashes usually come in three kinds:

  • Factual or causal: will the policy actually cause the outcome? This is where most rebuttal happens.
  • Comparative: both outcomes are real, so which matters more? This is weighing, and it is where most close rounds are decided.
  • Framework: what standard should the judge use? In Lincoln-Douglas this is the value and criterion; in other formats it is the burden each side has accepted.

How to find the clash that decides the round

Midway through the round, write each open disagreement on one line of your flow. Then ask four questions of each line:

  1. If we win only this clash, do we win the round?
  2. If we lose this clash, can we still win?
  3. Do we have the stronger warrant here, or only more material?
  4. How much speaking time does it take to win it properly?

The deciding clash is usually the one where the first answer is yes and the second is no. If two clashes both pass that test, pick the one where your warrant is stronger. A clash you can win in thirty seconds of explanation is worth more than one that needs three minutes of evidence.

Worked example: from five clashes to one

Practice motion: This House would replace homework with a longer school day

Clashes on the flow after the first speeches: Learning outcomes, equity for students without a quiet place to study, family time, teacher workload and cost to schools.

Proposition's choice: Equity. If extra practice happens at school, every student gets the same conditions; the opposition's answer, that schools could open study rooms, concedes that home conditions differ.

What proposition drops: Teacher workload and cost, which they were losing, and family time, which the opposition never weighed.

How they say it: "Three clashes are left. We will win on equity, and we will show why it outweighs the cost argument even if the opposition is right about the budget."

Opposition's best reply: Make learning outcomes the deciding clash instead, arguing that longer days add fatigue rather than learning, so equal conditions for less learning is no gain.

Both teams are now arguing about which clash matters, and that comparison is what a judge writes on the ballot. The team that names the deciding clash first usually sets the terms for the rest of the round.

Collapsing: why fewer arguments win

Collapsing means choosing the few arguments you are winning and spending your remaining time on them, instead of extending everything at the same depth. Late speeches are short. Every argument you keep costs time you could spend explaining its warrant and weighing it against the opponent's best point.

To collapse cleanly, say what you are going for, answer what the opponent said about it, and weigh. If you drop an argument the opponent has turned into a reason to vote against you, you still have to answer the turn, or concede the defence that takes the turn away; otherwise the dropped argument becomes their offense.

Where each format collapses

FormatWhere the collapse happensTime
Public ForumSummary, then final focus extends only what summary did3 minutes, then 2
Lincoln-DouglasNegative rebuttal and second affirmative rebuttal6 and 3 minutes
PolicySecond negative and second affirmative rebuttals5 minutes each
British ParliamentaryWhip speeches, which organise the debate into clashes without new arguments7 minutes
World SchoolsThird speeches organise the clashes; reply speeches give the biased summary8 and 4 minutes

These times come from the formats the free debate timer runs. Practise the collapse against the exact slot, because a two-minute final focus fits one issue well and two at most.

Common mistakes

  • Extending every argument in the last speech because dropping one feels like losing it.
  • Collapsing to the argument you prepared best instead of the one you are winning in this round.
  • Calling a clash "the key issue" without explaining why the judge cannot decide the round without it.
  • Dropping an argument that the opponent turned, which hands them a free reason to vote.
  • Switching the deciding clash between summary and final focus, or between the block and the 2NR.

A 12-minute clash drill

  1. Three minutes: take a flow from a recent round or a Sparring transcript and write every open disagreement on its own line.
  2. Two minutes: answer the four questions above for each line and circle one clash.
  3. Four minutes: give a two-minute final speech on that clash alone, timed, then a second version on the clash you did not circle.
  4. Three minutes: write down which version was easier to weigh and why. That reason is your collapse test for the next round.

In DebateOwl, Flowchart lays out a case's claims and links so the disagreements are easier to see, and Case Attacker shows which of your arguments has the weakest link before you decide what to keep.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between clash and weighing?

Clash is the disagreement itself. Weighing is the comparison that tells the judge which side's winning arguments matter more when both sides win something.

How many arguments should I collapse to?

Usually one or two. Last speeches are short, and one argument explained and weighed in depth beats three extended in a sentence each.

Is it risky to drop arguments?

Only when the dropped argument has been turned against you. Answer the turn or concede the defence that removes it, and the rest can go.

When should I decide what to collapse to?

Plan likely collapses before the round, then decide after the opponent's rebuttal, when you can see which clashes you are actually winning.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html index 363e5120..0cb5fb61 100644 --- a/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html +++ b/public/debate-evidence-finder/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Research workflow

Find Better Debate Evidence Without Losing the Argument

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Research workflow

Find Better Debate Evidence Without Losing the Argument

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

Can AI find reliable evidence for a debate case?

AI can find leads, not reliable evidence on its own. It is good at suggesting where to look and which searches to run, but a summary can lose a qualification, mix up two studies or point to a page that says something different. Open every original, check the author, date, publication, method and the text around the quote, and record the full citation. If the evidence is weak, do not read it. Narrow your claim or make the argument analytically, because a clear warrant often beats a card that falls apart under one question.

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 DebateOwl

  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. DebateOwl 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.

Frequently asked questions

Can AI find evidence for debate?

It can find leads: sources and searches that may support a claim. You still need to open each source, read it in context and record the citation before using it.

How do I verify debate evidence?

Check the author, date, publication and method, read the text around the quote, and confirm that it says what you claim. Record the full citation.

What should I do if my evidence is weak?

Do not read it. Find a better source, narrow your claim, or make the argument analytically without the card.

Where does DebateOwl keep my sources?

In the Library for your Current Debate. Sources you mark active are used by the other tools for that debate.

Is a card better than an analytical argument?

Only if it is accurate and relevant. A strong warrant without a card often beats a weak card that does not survive a question.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-fallacies/index.html b/public/debate-fallacies/index.html index 89d53ff5..1c7c5293 100644 --- a/public/debate-fallacies/index.html +++ b/public/debate-fallacies/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Strategy guide

Common Debate Fallacies and How to Attack Them

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Strategy guide

Common Debate Fallacies and How to Attack Them

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you attack a logical fallacy in a debate?

Point to the step that fails and say what the argument no longer proves once it does. Judges reward that explanation, not the name of the fallacy. A one-sentence answer usually works: a straw man misstates our model, a false dilemma ignores other options, a slippery slope has no reasons between its steps. Check first that the argument really is invalid rather than only weak, and use cross-examination to make the opponent state the missing link out loud.

Fallacies in context

Each fallacy shown inside an argument you could hear in a round, not as a textbook definition.

One-sentence answers

A reply for each that explains why the reasoning fails, which is what judges actually reward.

When it is not a fallacy

How to tell a weak argument from an invalid one, so you do not spend time on the wrong attack.

Name the failure, not the label

A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning: the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even if each premise sounds right. In a round, the Latin name earns nothing on its own. Judges reward the explanation of why the step fails and what is left of the argument once it does.

That is why the answers below are full sentences. Each one points at the missing step, so the judge can see the gap without knowing the term.

Eight fallacies inside real-style arguments

Each example is set on one practice motion, This House would ban single-use plastic packaging in supermarkets, so you can see how the same debate produces different flaws.

FallacyHow it sounds in the roundOne-sentence answer
Ad hominem"The proposition's evidence comes from an environmental group, so we can ignore it."Who funded the study tells us to check it, not that it is wrong; point to what in the method fails.
Straw man"They want to ban all plastic, including medical packaging."Our model covers single-use packaging in supermarkets only, so the medical harm is not in this debate.
False dilemma"Either we ban plastic packaging or we accept plastic in the ocean forever."There are other options, such as deposit schemes, and the proposition has to show the ban beats them.
Slippery slope"If supermarkets ban plastic today, governments will ban every product they dislike tomorrow."No step explains why one packaging rule leads to product bans, so the chain has no links.
Hasty generalization"One shop in our town went plastic-free and closed, so the ban will close supermarkets."One shop is not a pattern, and it closed for reasons the opposition has not shown were the packaging.
Appeal to authority"A famous chef says plastic-free kitchens are better, so the ban is right."A chef is an authority on cooking, not on supply chains, so the claim still needs its own evidence.
Circular reasoning"The ban is necessary because we need to stop using this packaging."That restates the motion; we still need a reason the packaging causes harm.
Correlation as causation"Plastic use rose as obesity rose, so plastic packaging causes obesity."Two trends rising together do not show one causes the other, and the opposition offers no mechanism.

When it is not a fallacy

Not every bad argument is a fallacy, and some arguments that sound like fallacies are valid. A slippery slope is fair when each step has a reason: if a ban raises costs, and higher costs push small shops out, and fewer shops reduce access in rural areas, that is a causal chain to attack link by link, not dismiss.

Appeals to expertise are also legitimate when the expert speaks inside their field. A food-safety regulator on packaging rules is evidence; the chef above is not. Attack the fit between the source and the claim rather than the use of a source.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on fallacies explains how philosophers disagree on where the line falls, which is a useful reminder that the label is less important than the reasoning.

Using fallacies in cross-examination

Cross-examination is the best place to expose a flawed step, because you can make the opponent say it out loud. Ask for the missing link: "What makes a supermarket rule lead to other product bans?" If they cannot answer, quote that in your next speech. If they can, you have found the real argument, and that is the one to rebut.

Common mistakes

  • Naming a fallacy without explaining the gap, which sounds like a dismissal rather than an answer.
  • Calling every weak argument a fallacy. A claim with thin evidence is weak; it is not invalid.
  • Attacking the person or the source instead of the reasoning, which is itself an ad hominem.
  • Spending a whole rebuttal on one flawed example when the opponent's main warrant stands.
  • Forgetting to say what follows: once the step fails, tell the judge what the argument no longer proves.

A 12-minute fallacy drill

  1. Two minutes: pick a motion from the free debate motion generator.
  2. Four minutes: write four flawed arguments on it, each using a different fallacy from the table.
  3. Four minutes: swap with a partner, or come back after a break, and answer each one in a single sentence without naming the fallacy.
  4. Two minutes: check whether each answer names the missing step. Rewrite any that only say the argument is wrong.

In DebateOwl, Case Attacker looks for weak links in a case, including steps that do not follow, and Crossfire lets you practise asking for the missing link under questioning.

Frequently asked questions

Should I say the name of the fallacy in my speech?

You can, but it is optional. What wins the point is explaining why the conclusion does not follow and what the argument no longer proves.

Is a slippery slope argument always a fallacy?

No. It is a fallacy when the steps have no reasons behind them. When each step has a mechanism, it is a causal argument to attack link by link.

What is the most common fallacy in debate?

Straw man arguments are among the most common, because it is easy to answer a more extreme version of the opponent's case than the one they gave.

Can pointing out a fallacy win a round?

It can win a clash if the flawed step carries the argument. It wins a round only when that argument was one the opponent needed.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html b/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html index e3195c5f..b8a6cfca 100644 --- a/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html +++ b/public/debate-judge-adaptation/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Strategy guide

Debate Judge Adaptation Guide

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Strategy guide

Debate Judge Adaptation Guide

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you adapt your debating to different types of judges?

Find out what the judge prefers before the round, from a published paradigm or by asking. Lay judges reward a clear story, plain language and a few arguments at a normal pace. Flow judges reward line-by-line answers, named extensions and explicit weighing. Technical judges add evidence quality and strategy. Change how many arguments you run and how you present them, not the claims you defend, and watch the judge's note-taking to adjust during the round.

Three kinds of judges

What lay, flow and technical judges each reward, and what loses them.

Before the round

Questions to ask and paradigms to read, so you adapt before your first sentence.

One argument, two judges

A worked example of the same argument delivered for a lay judge and for a flow judge.

What judges have in common

Every judge has to write a reason for their decision. Adapting means making that reason easy to write: a clear comparison they can repeat, in language they understand, at a pace they can follow. The style changes from judge to judge; the job does not.

Three kinds of judges

JudgeWhat they rewardHow to adapt
Lay judge (parent, teacher, community member)A clear story, plain language, confident deliveryFewer arguments, no jargon, a normal speaking pace and a one-sentence reason to vote
Flow judge (former debater or coach)Line-by-line clash, extensions, explicit weighingSignpost every response, extend warrants by name, never drop a turned argument
Technical judge (experienced circuit judge)Evidence quality, strategic choices, theory and frameworkPrecise extensions, efficient speed if they allow it, clear interpretations on theory

Most judges sit somewhere between these. A former debater who now judges local tournaments may flow carefully but dislike speed, so read the individual, not the category.

Before the round

Many tournaments publish judge paradigms, short statements of what a judge prefers. Read them during the pairing announcement. If there is no paradigm, ask politely before the round starts: "Do you have any preferences on speed or on how you weigh?" Most judges are glad to be asked.

In British Parliamentary and other university formats, judges are asked to judge as the ordinary intelligent voter. The WUDC Debating & Judging Manual describes that voter as someone who reads the front pages and world section of a major newspaper but no specialist literature. In practice that means explaining examples rather than just citing them, whoever the judge is.

Reading the room during the round

Watch the judge while you speak. A judge who stops writing during a technical section has probably stopped following it; slow down and restate the point in plainer words. A judge who nods at a comparison is telling you which argument is landing, so spend your remaining time there.

Adapt your cross-examination as well. Lay judges watch questioning as a contest of composure, so stay calm and brief. Flow judges listen for concessions, so make each one explicit and repeat it in your next speech.

Worked example: one argument, two judges

Practice motion: This House would make public libraries open 24 hours in large cities

The argument: Night-shift workers cannot use libraries during standard hours, so 24-hour opening reaches people current hours exclude.

For a lay judge: "Think of a nurse who works nights. Today the library is closed every hour she is free. Opening all night is the only way she gets the same library everyone else has." One example, one clear impact, said slowly.

For a flow judge: "Extend our first contention: access for shift workers. Their only answer was cost, but they never contested that current hours exclude this group. Weigh it: exclusion is certain and ongoing; their cost harm depends on staffing numbers they never gave."

What stays the same: The warrant (current hours exclude a group) and the comparison against cost. Only the framing and pace change.

Neither version is better in general. The lay version would lose a careful flow judge, who wants to hear which response was dropped, and the flow version would lose a lay judge in the first ten seconds.

Common mistakes

  • Treating adaptation as only changing speed, when the bigger change is how many arguments you run.
  • Using jargon such as "extend", "turn" or "link" with a lay judge without explaining what it means.
  • Giving a technical judge a story without line-by-line answers, so dropped arguments go uncounted.
  • Deciding a judge is lay from their appearance instead of reading their paradigm or asking.
  • Changing your arguments for the judge. Adapt the presentation and selection, not the claims you are willing to defend.

A 15-minute adaptation drill

  1. Two minutes: take one argument from your current case and write its warrant and impact in two sentences.
  2. Four minutes: rewrite it as a lay-judge version with one concrete example and no debate vocabulary.
  3. Four minutes: rewrite it as a flow-judge version with signposts, an extension and an explicit weighing line.
  4. Four minutes: deliver both, timed at one minute each, and record them.
  5. One minute: play both back and check that the warrant is the same in each.

In DebateOwl, Ask Coach can explain how a lay judge is likely to hear a block, and Sparring ends each round with a judged verdict that names the reason for the decision, which shows which comparison landed.

Frequently asked questions

What is a judge paradigm?

A short statement, often published by the tournament, of what a judge prefers: speed, evidence, theory, and how they weigh arguments.

How do I know what kind of judge I have?

Read their paradigm if there is one, ask before the round, and watch how they take notes once you start speaking.

Should I speak faster for an experienced judge?

Only if their paradigm or answer says they are comfortable with it. Many experienced judges prefer a moderate pace with clear signposting.

What is the ordinary intelligent voter?

The standard BP and many university judges are asked to use: a well-informed reader of the news without specialist knowledge, who needs examples explained.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html b/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html index 5d2959da..d85a6c8b 100644 --- a/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html +++ b/public/debate-motion-analysis/index.html @@ -17,36 +17,36 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Strategy guide

Debate Motion Analysis Guide

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Strategy guide

Debate Motion Analysis Guide

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you analyze a debate motion?

Identify the motion type first, because a policy, value, regret or actor motion each sets a different burden. Define just the words that shape the round, the way a reasonable person would read them, and add a model for policy motions. Write each side's burden in one sentence, list who the motion affects, and name the two or three clashes the round is likely to turn on. Decide which clash to prepare first before writing any argument.

Motion types

What "This House would", "believes", "regrets" and actor motions each ask the proposition to prove.

Definitions and models

Defining terms fairly enough to survive challenge and narrowly enough to defend.

A worked analysis

One original motion taken from first reading to burdens, stakeholders and the likely clashes.

Start with the motion type

The opening words of a motion set the burden. Parliamentary and World Schools motions use a few standard forms; topics in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and Policy are written as resolutions, but the same questions apply.

Motion typeWhat the proposition must showExample form
PolicyThe change should happen, and it beats the status quoThis House would require...
Value or beliefA claim is true or a value outweighs anotherThis House believes that...
RegretThe world is worse because something happened, compared with a world where it did notThis House regrets...
ActorA named actor should choose this, given that actor's interestsThis House, as a parent, would...

Reading the type wrong is costly. A regret motion debated as a policy motion leaves the proposition arguing about a future plan when the judge is comparing two versions of the past.

Define, then model

Define only the terms that change the debate, and define them the way an ordinary reasonable person would read them. The WUDC Debating & Judging Manual calls a definition that evades the motion's burden a squirrel; its example is defining tolls on "all roads" as tolls on major motorways only. A squirrel can cost a team the round even if its arguments are good.

For policy motions, add a model: who acts, what they do, when, and what is excluded. A model answers the questions the opposition would otherwise answer for you, and it gives your arguments a concrete mechanism to point to.

Burdens and stakeholders

Write each side's burden in one sentence. The proposition's burden comes from the motion; the opposition's is usually to show the proposition fails it, or to defend a better alternative. If you cannot write the burden in a sentence, you do not yet know what the round is about.

Then list who the motion affects, and how. Stakeholders are where extensions, second contentions and weighing come from: an argument that names who is helped or harmed is easier to compare than one that talks about society in general.

Worked example: one motion, analyzed

Practice motion: This House would let secondary students rate their teachers, with the ratings published

Type: Policy. The proposition must show the change is better than the current system of internal reviews.

Terms to define: "Rate" as a short standard survey each term; "published" as visible to students and parents at the school, not on the open internet.

Model: Results are shown per teacher after a minimum number of responses, and comments are not published.

Proposition burden: Published ratings improve teaching, or student voice, more than the harm they do.

Opposition burden: Published ratings harm teaching or teachers more than they help, or private ratings would do the same good with less harm.

Stakeholders: Students, teachers, especially new and strict ones, parents choosing classes, and school leaders who already review teachers.

Likely clashes: Whether ratings measure teaching or popularity; whether publication adds anything over private feedback; the effect on teacher recruitment.

The "publication adds anything" clash is the one to prepare first. The opposition can concede that student feedback is useful and still win if private ratings capture the benefit without the harm, so the proposition needs a reason publication itself matters.

Common mistakes

  • Defining every word in the motion, including ones nobody disputes, and leaving less time for the case.
  • A definition so narrow it removes the debate, which judges treat as evading the burden.
  • Skipping the model on a policy motion, so the opposition attacks the worst version of your idea.
  • Treating stakeholders as a list to recite rather than a source of arguments and weighing.
  • Writing contentions before writing the burdens, then discovering a contention proves something the round does not need.

A 15-minute motion analysis drill

  1. One minute: draw a motion from the free debate motion generator and name its type.
  2. Three minutes: define the terms that matter and, for a policy motion, write a three-line model.
  3. Three minutes: write each side's burden in one sentence and list four stakeholders.
  4. Four minutes: name the three clashes you expect and pick the one you would prepare first.
  5. Four minutes: give a one-minute opening that sets out the definition and burden, then repeat it for the other side.

Brainstorm in DebateOwl explores angles on both sides of a motion, which is a quick check on whether your stakeholder list missed anyone, and Ask Coach can question your burden sentence before you build a case on it.

Frequently asked questions

What is a burden in debate?

What a side must prove to win the round. The proposition's burden comes from the wording of the motion; the opposition's is usually to show it has not been met.

Can the opposition challenge a definition?

Yes, if it is unreasonable or evades the motion. Challenge it early and explain why, then debate the motion as it should have been defined.

Do I need a model for every motion?

Only for policy motions, where the proposition proposes a change. Value and regret motions need clear definitions and a comparison instead.

How long should motion analysis take in prep?

In a short prep window, spend the first few minutes on type, definitions and burdens before writing any argument. Everything later depends on them.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html b/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html index ffa79aa3..e05f8463 100644 --- a/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html +++ b/public/debate-rebuttal-practice/index.html @@ -17,36 +17,36 @@ - + - +
- +
-
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.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
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.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you find the weak link in an argument you need to rebut?

Start with the warrant, because a claim without a warrant gives the judge nothing to weigh, so the reason behind a claim is usually the link to attack. Then choose your move: deny the claim, attack the warrant, mitigate the impact, turn it or outweigh it. Write each answer as a short block with a tag line, the response and why it matters, and deliver it in under forty-five seconds. An AI analysis can point out missing warrants and overclaimed impacts, but in round you still adapt each block to what the opponent actually said.

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.

Frequently asked questions

How can I practise rebuttals on my own?

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

How long should a rebuttal response be?

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

What is the difference between a rebuttal and a block?

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

Can the AI predict my opponent's arguments?

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

How do I stop dropping arguments?

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

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html b/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html index d5390f8b..e3e4bb54 100644 --- a/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html +++ b/public/debate-speech-structure/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Strategy guide

Debate Speech Structure and Delivery

Build every speech so the judge can flow it, then deliver it so they hear every word.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Strategy guide

Debate Speech Structure and Delivery

Build every speech so the judge can flow it, then deliver it so they hear every word.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How should you structure and deliver a debate speech?

Open with a one-sentence roadmap, signpost each section, and give each point as claim, warrant and impact. Constructives build the case and preview weighing; rebuttals start with the arguments the ballot depends on; final speeches collapse to one or two clashes and weigh them without new arguments. Budget each section's time before you speak. When delivering, slow down on signposts and the weighing line, pause so the judge can find their place, and practise any names you need to pronounce.

Three speech shapes

What a constructive, a rebuttal and a final speech each have to do, with a skeleton for each.

A timed outline

One four-minute speech broken into time marks, so you know what each minute is for.

Delivery that lands

Pace, pauses, emphasis and pronunciation habits that make an argument easier to follow.

What every speech shares

Judges write down what they can follow. A structured speech gives them the place to write each point: a roadmap at the start, a signpost before each argument, and a closing line that tells them what to do with it.

  • Roadmap: one sentence listing what you will cover, in order.
  • Signposts: "On their first contention" or "Our second argument" before each section, so the judge knows which part of the flow you are on.
  • Claim, warrant, impact: the point, the reason it is true, and why it matters to the decision.
  • Weighing: a comparison with the other side's best point, not only a statement that yours is important.
  • Close: one sentence that tells the judge why your side wins.

Three speech shapes

Constructive

Open with your position and any definitions the round needs, then give each contention as claim, warrant, evidence and impact. Preview the weighing in the last thirty seconds, so the judge knows how you want the round compared before the other side speaks.

Rebuttal

Answer the arguments that decide the round first, attack their warrants rather than their conclusions, and group similar points so one answer covers several. If time allows, rebuild your own case against what was said about it.

Final speech

Name the one or two clashes that decide the round, explain why you win each, and weigh. Do not add new arguments: the other side has no chance to answer them, and most judges ignore them.

Speech times by format

FormatConstructive or substantiveRebuttalFinal speech
Public Forum4 minutes4 minutesSummary 3, final focus 2
Lincoln-DouglasAffirmative 6, negative 71AR 4, NR 62AR 3
Policy8 minutes each5 minutes each2NR and 2AR, 5 each
British Parliamentary7 minutesWithin each 7-minute speechWhips, 7 minutes
World Schools8 minutesWithin each 8-minute speechReply, 4 minutes

The free debate timer runs each of these. Paste a written speech into the speech time calculator to see whether it fits its slot before you practise it aloud.

Worked example: a four-minute rebuttal, minute by minute

Practice motion: This House would let students choose their own school uniform supplier

0:00 to 0:15, roadmap: "Two responses to their cost argument, one to their identity argument, then why our case still stands."

0:15 to 1:30, cost: Their warrant is that a single supplier gets bulk discounts. Answer: discounts only matter if they reach families, and a single supplier has no reason to pass them on.

1:30 to 2:30, identity: They say a common supplier keeps uniforms identical. Answer: a design standard does that; who sells the uniform does not change what it looks like.

2:30 to 3:30, rebuild: Extend our competition argument, because their cost case assumed the supplier passes on savings, and we have shown it does not have to.

3:30 to 4:00, weigh and close: Families pay every year under a single supplier, while the identity harm is solved by a design rule, so the cost clash decides the debate.

Each block has one job and a time budget. If the cost answer runs long, the rebuild shrinks, not the weighing: the last thirty seconds are what the judge remembers when filling in the ballot.

Delivery and pronunciation

The judge cannot vote for an argument they did not hear. Clear delivery is less about sounding polished and more about making the structure audible.

  • Slow down on tags, signposts and the weighing line; the explanation in between can be faster.
  • Pause for a beat after each signpost so the judge can find the place on their flow.
  • Stress the word that carries the argument, such as "only", "never" or "even if", instead of stressing every word.
  • Practise saying names, places and technical terms before the round; a stumble on an author's name costs more credibility than the time it takes.
  • Vary pitch at section changes. A flat voice makes every point sound equally important, which is the opposite of weighing.

Record a practice speech and listen back once for content and once for delivery only. Most speakers find they rush the parts that matter most.

Common mistakes

  • No roadmap, so the judge spends the first minute working out which argument you are answering.
  • Answering arguments in the order they were made rather than in order of importance.
  • Final speeches that list arguments without weighing them against anything.
  • Speeding up when time is short, which usually means the last and most important point is the hardest to hear.
  • Reading word for word from a script, which flattens delivery and makes it hard to adapt to what was said.

A 15-minute structure and delivery drill

  1. Three minutes: write a roadmap and signposts for a rebuttal against a speech you have on paper.
  2. Four minutes: deliver it, timed, and record it.
  3. Three minutes: listen back and mark every place where the judge would not know which point you were on.
  4. Four minutes: deliver it again with a pause after each signpost and the weighing line slowed down.
  5. One minute: compare the two recordings and note one delivery habit to keep.

Sparring in DebateOwl has a voice mode, so you can speak each speech rather than type it, and the round ends with a judged verdict on the argument. Ask Coach can review a written speech's structure before you practise it aloud.

Frequently asked questions

What is a roadmap in debate?

A one-sentence preview at the start of a speech that lists what you will cover, in order, so the judge can follow along on their flow.

Should I write out my whole speech?

Write constructives in full if you like, but speak rebuttals and final speeches from notes, so you can answer what was actually said.

How fast should I speak?

As fast as your judge can follow. With a lay judge, use a normal conversational pace; with an experienced flow judge you can go faster, but keep signposts and weighing slow.

How do I stop rushing at the end of a speech?

Budget each section's time in advance and practise against a timer. Cut material from the middle, never the weighing at the end.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html b/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html index b53753b9..d85b035d 100644 --- a/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html +++ b/public/debate-topics-for-students/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Resource

Debate Topics for Students

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Resource

Debate Topics for Students

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

What are good debate topics for students?

It depends on level. Beginners do best with topics from daily life, such as banning homework in primary schools, optional school uniforms or a four-day school week, so they can focus on structure instead of research. Intermediate debaters can take on lowering the voting age to 16 or taxing sugary drinks. Advanced teams can handle universal basic income or autonomous weapons. At any level, a good practice topic is balanced, has real clash and stakes, and is accessible without specialist knowledge. Competitive leagues set their own topics.

Topics by level

Starter motions for new debaters, intermediate motions with more technical clash, and advanced motions for experienced teams.

Topics by format

Motion wording for BP and WSDC, resolutions for Public Forum and value resolutions for Lincoln-Douglas.

From topic to first case

How to tell a good practice motion from a weak one, and how to turn it into a case in one session.

What makes a good debate topic

A good practice topic gives both sides real arguments. If one side has an obviously better case, the round teaches the losing side to cope with a bad position and the winning side very little. Before using a topic, check four things:

  • Balance: could you write a strong case for either side in an hour?
  • Clash: do the two sides disagree about the same thing, or will they talk past each other?
  • Stakes: is there a real effect on real people, so impacts can be weighed?
  • Access: can students at this level understand the topic without specialist knowledge, or find material quickly?

The motions below are written to pass those checks. They are for practice; competitive leagues set their own topics, and the wording matters, so keep it exactly as written when you practise.

Starter topics for new debaters

These rely on everyday experience, so students can argue them without research and focus on structure.

  • This house would ban homework in primary schools. Clash: learning time against rest and family time.
  • This house would make school uniforms optional. Clash: equality and belonging against individual expression and cost.
  • This house would ban smartphones in secondary schools. Clash: attention and wellbeing against safety and digital skills.
  • This house believes that zoos do more harm than good. Clash: conservation against animal welfare.
  • This house would introduce a four-day school week. Clash: teacher retention and focus against childcare and lost instruction.
  • This house would require all students to learn a musical instrument. Clash: cultural and cognitive benefits against choice and resources.
  • This house believes that video games are good for young people. Clash: skills and community against time use and harm.

Intermediate topics

These need some background knowledge and reward weighing between competing values.

  • This house would lower the voting age to 16.
  • This house would make voting compulsory.
  • This house would tax sugary drinks.
  • This house would make public transport free.
  • This house believes that social media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms.
  • This house would ban advertising aimed at children.
  • This house would replace exams with continuous assessment.
  • This house believes that wealthy countries should accept more climate refugees.

Advanced topics

These have technical clash, contested evidence and principled arguments on both sides.

  • This house would introduce a universal basic income.
  • This house believes that developing countries should prioritise economic growth over environmental protection.
  • This house would ban the development of autonomous weapons.
  • This house believes that the rise of artificial intelligence will do more harm than good to workers.
  • This house would allow parents to genetically edit their children to prevent disease.
  • This house believes that international institutions should have the power to override national governments on climate policy.

Topics written for specific formats

British Parliamentary and World Schools

Both use motions starting with This house would (a policy), This house believes that (a value judgment) or This house regrets (a judgment on something that has happened). Practise all three types, because each changes the burden. A regret motion such as This house regrets the rise of influencer culture asks you to compare the world as it is with a world where that thing never happened.

Public Forum

PF uses resolutions that name an actor and a policy, written to be argued by a general audience. Practice examples: Resolved: Schools should replace letter grades with pass or fail grading. Resolved: The benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the harms. Resolved: Governments should ban single-use plastics.

Lincoln-Douglas

LD resolutions ask about values and obligations. Practice examples: Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to help those in need. Resolved: A just society ought to prioritise equality over liberty. Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

Worked example: turning a topic into a first case

Motion: This house would replace exams with continuous assessment

Key terms: Continuous assessment means grades built from coursework, projects and regular tests across the year, instead of one final exam.

Proposition burden: Show continuous assessment measures learning more fairly or more accurately than exams, without new harms that outweigh that.

Proposition angle: Exams reward performance on one day, so anxiety, illness or a bad night's sleep can outweigh a year of work.

Opposition angle: Coursework is easier to get help with at home, so it favours students with educated or wealthy parents.

The clash: Which system is the more accurate measure of what a student can do on their own?

Weighing question: Is the unfairness of a single bad day larger or smaller than the unfairness of unequal help at home?

Ten minutes of this analysis gives a team enough to start writing contentions. The clash and the weighing question tell both sides where the round will be decided.

How to use a topic list in practice

  1. Pick a topic and flip a coin for sides, so students practise arguing positions they do not hold.
  2. Give fifteen minutes of preparation for impromptu formats, or a week for prepared formats.
  3. Run the round with real speech times.
  4. Debrief on one question: where was the clash, and who won it?
  5. Rerun the same topic with sides swapped. The second round is usually much better, because each team now knows the other side's best arguments.

For a quick random pick, the free debate motion generator draws a practice motion by topic and difficulty, with no account.

In DebateOwl, start a Current Debate with the motion and run Brainstorm to see angles for both sides, generate a case with its predicted opposing case, or run a Sparring round against the AI when there is no second team available.

Frequently asked questions

What are good debate topics for beginners?

Topics students already know from daily life, such as homework, school uniforms, smartphones in school or a four-day school week. They let new debaters focus on structure instead of research.

How do I know if a debate topic is balanced?

Try writing a short case for each side. If one side struggles to find two serious arguments, the topic is unbalanced and will make a poor practice round.

What is the difference between a motion and a resolution?

They mean the same thing in different formats. BP and World Schools use motions such as This house would; Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas use resolutions beginning Resolved.

Where do competition debate topics come from?

Each league or tournament sets its own. Some publish topics in advance for prepared formats; others release motions shortly before each round. Practise with your league's past topics when they are available.

Can AI help me prepare for a debate topic?

Yes, for brainstorming angles, drafting a first case structure and predicting the other side. Check any facts against original sources and write the final case in your own words.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html b/public/debateowl-pricing/index.html similarity index 93% rename from public/debatelab-pricing/index.html rename to public/debateowl-pricing/index.html index 16eaa0b3..f7ebbbc7 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-pricing/index.html +++ b/public/debateowl-pricing/index.html @@ -6,45 +6,45 @@ DebateOwl Pricing and Plans | DebateOwl - + - + - + - +
- +
-
Pricing

DebateOwl Pricing and Plans

A 3-day free trial with no credit card, then one paid plan. Prices on this page were checked in October 2026.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Pricing

DebateOwl Pricing and Plans

A 3-day free trial with no credit card, then one paid plan. Prices on this page were checked in October 2026.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How much does DebateOwl cost?

As of October 2026, DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial with no credit card required, then Pro costs $5/month + tax. There is no permanent free plan. Whether Pro is worth it depends on how often you prepare: if you debate every week or have a tournament coming, it covers heavy prep weeks with higher daily limits and all 10 models. If you need help only occasionally and want to stay free, a general chatbot's free tier or a free practice tool will suit you better.

Trial: $0 for 3 days

All 8 prep modes plus Library, Debate timer and History, with starter AI prep access and starter models. No credit card required to start.

Pro: $5/month + tax

Expanded AI prep access, all 10 models, Active Grounding research and priority support.

No permanent free plan

When the trial ends, a Pro subscription is required to keep using DebateOwl. You can cancel any time.

-

What each plan includes (as of October 2026)

Trial

  • Price: $0 for 3 days. No credit card required.
  • All 8 prep modes: Case generator, Brainstorm, Factoids, Flowchart, Case attacker, Ask coach, Crossfire and Sparring, plus Library, Debate timer and History.
  • Starter AI prep access and starter models.

Pro

  • Price: $5/month + tax.
  • All 8 prep modes plus Library, Debate timer and History.
  • Expanded AI prep access, with higher daily limits for heavy prep weeks.
  • All 10 models, including Claude Opus and Sonnet, GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini.
  • Active Grounding research and priority support.

There is no permanent free plan. After the trial, a subscription is required to continue using DebateOwl.

Is Pro worth it for you?

It depends on how often you prepare. Use the trial on a real motion: generate a case, attack it, run one Sparring round and read the verdict. If that loop saved you time, Pro is priced for students who prep every week or have a tournament coming.

If you debate a few times a year, or you need a tool that stays free, DebateOwl is probably not the right fit. A general chatbot's free tier can cover occasional brainstorming, and some practice tools are free to use.

Cancelling

You can cancel any time from the Settings page. You keep Pro access until the end of the billing period you already paid for.

+

What each plan includes (as of October 2026)

Trial

  • Price: $0 for 3 days. No credit card required.
  • All 8 prep modes: Case generator, Brainstorm, Factoids, Flowchart, Case attacker, Ask coach, Crossfire and Sparring, plus Library, Debate timer and History.
  • Starter AI prep access and starter models.

Pro

  • Price: $5/month + tax.
  • All 8 prep modes plus Library, Debate timer and History.
  • Expanded AI prep access, with higher daily limits for heavy prep weeks.
  • All 10 models, including Claude Opus and Sonnet, GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini.
  • Active Grounding research and priority support.

There is no permanent free plan. After the trial, a subscription is required to continue using DebateOwl.

Is Pro worth it for you?

It depends on how often you prepare. Use the trial on a real motion: generate a case, attack it, run one Sparring round and read the verdict. If that loop saved you time, Pro is priced for students who prep every week or have a tournament coming.

If you debate a few times a year, or you need a tool that stays free, DebateOwl is probably not the right fit. A general chatbot's free tier can cover occasional brainstorming, and some practice tools are free to use.

Cancelling

You can cancel any time from the Settings page. You keep Pro access until the end of the billing period you already paid for.

Frequently asked questions

How much does DebateOwl cost?

As of October 2026, DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial with no credit card required. After that, Pro costs $5/month + tax.

Is there a free plan?

No. There is a 3-day free trial, but no permanent free plan. A subscription is required after the trial.

Do I need a credit card for the trial?

No. You can start the 3-day trial without a credit card.

What does Pro add over the trial?

Expanded AI prep access with higher daily limits, all 10 models including Claude Opus and Sonnet, GPT-6.1 Sol and Gemini, Active Grounding research and priority support.

Can I cancel my subscription?

Yes, any time from the Settings page. You keep access until the end of your billing period.

- + diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html b/public/debateowl-vs-chatgpt/index.html similarity index 94% rename from public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html rename to public/debateowl-vs-chatgpt/index.html index 73580e54..0521aa30 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-chatgpt/index.html +++ b/public/debateowl-vs-chatgpt/index.html @@ -6,45 +6,45 @@ DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep | DebateOwl - + - + - + - +
- +
-
Comparison

DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Comparison

DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

Which is better for debate prep, DebateOwl or ChatGPT?

It depends on the task. ChatGPT is better for learning a new topic, open brainstorming and general writing help, and it works for any subject. DebateOwl is better when you are preparing a specific motion: it keeps your cases, sources and practice rounds together, predicts the opposing case, times your speeches and gives a verdict on practice rounds. Many debaters use both, ChatGPT for background and DebateOwl for motion prep and practice. Neither replaces checking original sources.

A general assistant

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

A debate workspace

DebateOwl 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. DebateOwl 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 DebateOwl, 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 DebateOwl: 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 DebateOwl 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.

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateOwl better than ChatGPT for debate?

For motion-specific preparation and practice rounds, a dedicated workspace saves setup and adds timing, an AI opponent and verdicts. For open-ended learning and general writing, ChatGPT is more flexible. Many debaters use both.

Can I practise a debate round with ChatGPT?

You can ask it to role-play an opponent, but you have to manage the format, the speech order and the timing yourself, and there is no built-in verdict. DebateOwl's Sparring runs the round structure for you.

Does DebateOwl keep my debate prep organised?

Yes. Cases, sources, analyses and practice rounds are saved inside the Current Debate they belong to, behind sign-in.

Do I still need to check evidence from either tool?

Yes. Any AI tool can produce errors or misread sources. Open the original and confirm the exact claim before you use it in a round.

Which formats does DebateOwl support?

Case generation, Attack, Ask and Crossfire work for any motion. Sparring runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds, and the timer adds a Policy preset.

- -
- + diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html b/public/debateowl-vs-debateclub/index.html similarity index 92% rename from public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html rename to public/debateowl-vs-debateclub/index.html index a3566bd6..29edef8a 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-debateclub/index.html +++ b/public/debateowl-vs-debateclub/index.html @@ -6,45 +6,45 @@ DebateOwl vs DebateClub Comparison | DebateOwl - + - + - + - +
- +
-
Comparison

DebateOwl vs DebateClub

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Comparison

DebateOwl vs DebateClub

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

Which is better, DebateOwl or DebateClub?

They solve different problems. As of October 2026, DebateClub is voice-only sparring for high-stakes conversations such as negotiations, pitches and meetings, with opponent personas and rhetorical technique scoring, and Pro costs $19/month. It names no competitive debate formats. DebateOwl is built for school and competitive debate: cases, rebuttals, evidence, a timer and timed rounds in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, at $5/month + tax after a 3-day trial. Choose DebateClub for workplace persuasion practice and DebateOwl for tournament prep.

Audience

As of October 2026, DebateClub describes itself as training for high-stakes conversations such as negotiations, pitches and meetings. DebateOwl is built for school and competitive debate.

Practice style

DebateClub is voice-only sparring with opponent personas. DebateOwl combines case prep tools with timed Sparring rounds you can type or speak.

Price

DebateClub has a free tier with one debate credit and Pro at $19/month. DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial, then Pro at $5/month + tax.

What DebateClub offers

DebateClub (debateclub.app) calls itself a training platform for high-stakes conversations: you speak out loud and an AI sparring partner responds in real time. Its site lists opponent personas such as a skeptical investor or a hostile critic, detection and scoring of rhetorical techniques, session recordings and a prep screen for openings and counters. It does not name school or competitive debate formats.

As of October 2026, its plans are Free ($0, one debate credit) and Pro ($19/month or $149/year). These details come from DebateClub's own site; check it for current terms.

What DebateOwl offers

DebateOwl is an AI debate prep and practice app for students and competitive debaters, with 8 prep modes. It builds structured cases with a predicted opponent case, finds weak links with Attack, researches claims with Factoids, drills cross-examination in Crossfire and runs timed Sparring rounds in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum that end in a verdict. Voice mode lets you speak your speeches instead of typing them.

As of October 2026, DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial with no credit card, then Pro at $5/month + tax. The app is available in English, Spanish and Hungarian.

Which fits you

  • Preparing for a negotiation, pitch, interview or meeting: DebateClub is built for that.
  • Practising out loud against interruptions and difficult personas: DebateClub.
  • Preparing cases, rebuttals and evidence for a debate tournament: DebateOwl.
  • Practising full rounds in a school debate format with speech times and a verdict: DebateOwl.

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateClub for competitive debate?

As of October 2026, DebateClub's site describes training for high-stakes conversations such as negotiations and pitches and does not name competitive debate formats.

Does DebateOwl support voice practice?

Yes. Sparring has a voice mode, so you can speak your speeches instead of typing them.

Which is cheaper?

As of October 2026, DebateOwl Pro is $5/month + tax and DebateClub Pro is $19/month. DebateClub also has a free tier with one debate credit; DebateOwl has a 3-day trial and no permanent free plan.

- -
- + diff --git a/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html b/public/debateowl-vs-windebate/index.html similarity index 93% rename from public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html rename to public/debateowl-vs-windebate/index.html index 8e724388..8dbf2bc6 100644 --- a/public/debatelab-vs-windebate/index.html +++ b/public/debateowl-vs-windebate/index.html @@ -6,45 +6,45 @@ DebateOwl vs WinDebate Comparison | DebateOwl - + - + - + - +
- +
-
Comparison

DebateOwl vs WinDebate

Two AI debate prep platforms compared on features and workflows.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Comparison

DebateOwl vs WinDebate

Two AI debate prep platforms compared on features and workflows.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

Which is better, DebateOwl or WinDebate?

It depends on your format, budget and how you practise. As of October 2026, WinDebate names six formats including Congressional, Policy and British Parliamentary, has a free tier with monthly limits, and adds live-round capture, replay review and progress tracking, with paid plans from $19.99/month. DebateOwl costs $5/month + tax after a 3-day trial, runs full practice rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, and works in English, Spanish and Hungarian. Choose WinDebate for Policy, Congress or season tracking, and DebateOwl for low-cost case building and sparring.

Formats

As of October 2026, WinDebate names six formats: Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional, Policy, World Schools and British Parliamentary. DebateOwl's Sparring rounds cover School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum.

Price

WinDebate has a free tier with monthly limits and paid plans from $19.99/month. DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial, then Pro at $5/month + tax.

Workflow

WinDebate is organised as prep, practice, live round and review. DebateOwl keeps cases, sources, practice rounds and debriefs together in one Current Debate.

What WinDebate offers

WinDebate (windebate.ai) describes itself as a debate training platform with four stages: prep, practice, live and review. Its site lists research on both sides with evidence and rebuttal trees, targeted drills for attack, defense, weighing and speeches, a Live Round Assistant that captures speeches and builds response cards, replay review that turns a round into drills, and progress tracking.

As of October 2026, its plans are Free ($0, with 1 research session, 10 drills and 1 Live Assistant round a month), Plus ($19.99/month, which adds voice input and playback and weekly progress) and Pro ($39.99/month). These details come from WinDebate's own site; check it for current terms.

What DebateOwl offers

DebateOwl is an AI debate prep and practice app with 8 prep modes. You start a Current Debate for one motion, add sources to its Library, generate a structured case with a predicted opponent case, find weak links with Attack, research claims with Factoids, ask the Ask coach, drill cross-examination in Crossfire, and run timed Sparring rounds against an AI opponent that end in a verdict. A speech timer and an argument flowchart round it out.

As of October 2026, DebateOwl has a 3-day free trial with no credit card, then Pro at $5/month + tax. The app is available in English, Spanish and Hungarian.

How to choose

  • You debate Policy, Congress or British Parliamentary and want a tool that names your format: WinDebate lists all three.
  • You want to track progress across a season or review recorded rounds: WinDebate lists progress tracking and replay review.
  • You want a free tier you can keep using: WinDebate has one; DebateOwl does not.
  • You want full practice rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum, with a verdict: DebateOwl.
  • You prepare in Spanish or Hungarian, or want the lowest paid price: DebateOwl.

The fairest test is to run the same motion through both during DebateOwl's trial and WinDebate's free tier, then compare the cases, the feedback and how much setup each needed.

Frequently asked questions

Is DebateOwl cheaper than WinDebate?

As of October 2026, DebateOwl Pro is $5/month + tax and WinDebate's paid plans start at $19.99/month. WinDebate also has a free tier with monthly limits; DebateOwl has a 3-day trial and no permanent free plan.

Which formats does each tool support?

WinDebate names Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congressional, Policy, World Schools and British Parliamentary. DebateOwl's case, Attack, Ask and Crossfire tools work for any motion, and Sparring runs School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum rounds.

Can I use both?

Yes. They are separate products, and some debaters use one for prep and another for review.

- -
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html index edb027b3..852d3c1c 100644 --- a/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-cross-examine-in-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Cross-Examine in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Cross-Examine in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you cross-examine well in a debate?

Ask short, closed questions that get commitments you can use in your next speech, rather than open questions that let the speaker repeat their case. A good line commits the speaker to something, narrows it, then stops before they can explain it away. A three-minute period fits two or three lines, so pick the ones that attack the warrant the round depends on. Repeat any concession in your speech and weigh it, because judges decide on what the next speech does with cross-ex. In World Schools and British Parliamentary, Points of Information do this job instead.

Question design

Short, closed questions that get a commitment, in an order that leads to the point you want to make.

Time management

How to choose the two or three lines of questioning that matter in a three-minute period.

Using concessions

How to carry what the opponent admitted into your next speech, where the judge will actually weigh it.

What cross-examination is for

Cross-examination is not a speech. Judges rarely decide a round on what happens in cross-ex itself; they decide on what the next speech does with it. Its jobs are to clarify what the other side is arguing, to get commitments you can use, and to expose a warrant that does not hold.

That changes how you ask. You are not trying to win an argument with the speaker. You are collecting material for your speech, so every question should lead to something you can say later.

Designing questions

Ask leading, closed questions that invite a yes or a no. Open questions such as "why do you think that?" hand the speaker a second speech. Closed questions keep control with you.

Good lines of questioning have a shape: commit, then confront.

  1. Commit the speaker to something they cannot easily deny. "Your plan relies on schools having enough trained staff?"
  2. Narrow it. "And you have not told us where those staff come from?"
  3. Stop. Do not ask the final question that lets them explain. Make the point in your speech instead: "They conceded the plan needs staff it never provides."

Write your opening question for each line before the round. You will adapt the rest, but a prepared first question stops you from opening with something vague.

Managing the time

A three-minute period fits two or three lines of questioning, not ten. Pick the lines that attack the warrant the round depends on, and leave minor points for the speech. If an answer is evasive, ask once more in a narrower form, then move on; the judge has seen the evasion.

Common mistakes:

  • Asking open questions that let the speaker repeat their case.
  • Arguing with the answer instead of asking the next question.
  • Asking one question too many, so the speaker gets to explain away the point.
  • Running out of time before reaching the line that mattered.
  • Getting a concession and never mentioning it again.

Using concessions in your speech

A concession only counts if the judge hears it again in a speech. Quote it, say what it means for the clash, and weigh it: "In cross-ex they agreed the plan needs trained staff. They have no source of staff, so the plan does not solve." Concessions are strong because the other side cannot easily take them back.

Answering cross-examination

When you are the one answering, keep answers short and accurate, and do not concede the warrant your case depends on. If a question rests on an assumption you reject, say so in one sentence. It is fine to say you will answer a point in your speech; it is not fine to filibuster.

Format notes

Policy and Lincoln-Douglas

Each constructive is followed by a three-minute cross-examination by the opponent. Use it to set up the rebuttals, and note which answers you will need later.

Public Forum

Crossfire is three minutes, and both speakers can ask and answer. Grand crossfire involves all four debaters. With shared time, short questions and short answers matter even more.

World Schools and British Parliamentary

There is no cross-examination period. Points of Information do the same job in fifteen seconds: one sharp question or statement aimed at a weak warrant.

Practise with DebateOwl Crossfire

Crossfire runs a question period against the AI in either direction. Question the AI while it answers from the opposing side, or let the AI question you while you defend your case. Choose a cooperative, evasive or aggressive opponent, so you can practise follow-ups against slippery answers as well as straight ones. Each session ends with a debrief. Attack can also suggest cross-ex questions for an argument, which you can open in Crossfire to practise.

Frequently asked questions

What makes a good cross-examination question?

It is short, closed and leads somewhere: it gets a commitment you can use in your next speech, rather than inviting the speaker to explain their case again.

How many questions should I ask in cross-ex?

Enough for two or three lines of questioning. Quality matters more than count; stop each line before the speaker can explain the problem away.

What should I do with a concession?

Repeat it in your next speech, say what it means for the clash and weigh it. A concession the judge never hears again does not help you.

How do I answer cross-ex questions well?

Answer briefly and accurately, reject false assumptions in one sentence, and do not concede the warrant your case depends on.

Can I practise cross-examination without a partner?

Yes. Crossfire in DebateOwl lets you question the AI or be questioned by it, with cooperative, evasive or aggressive opponent styles.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html index 8e02685f..d93daa73 100644 --- a/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-flow-in-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Flow in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Flow in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you flow a debate round?

Take notes in columns, one per speech in speaking order, with a separate sheet or section for each side's case. Write each argument's tag in a few words with the warrant underneath, use two colours, and leave space. A short, consistent set of abbreviations lets you keep up. Mark any argument with nothing next to it in the next column as dropped, since most formats treat it as conceded. Paper and a laptop both work. In British Parliamentary and World Schools, many debaters flow by clash instead of strictly by speech.

Column structure

One column per speech, so each argument can be followed across the round from where it starts to where it is answered or dropped.

Abbreviations that keep up

A short, consistent set of symbols, so you can write as fast as the round moves.

Dropped argument tracking

A habit of marking what was not answered, because a dropped argument is usually a conceded one.

Why flowing matters

Flowing is taking notes in a structure that follows arguments through the round. If you cannot see the structure of the debate, you cannot respond strategically: you answer what you remember, not what matters, and you miss what the other side dropped.

Judges flow too. When your speech follows the same structure as their flow, the judge can see each response land on the argument it answers.

How to set up your flow

  1. Use one column per speech, left to right in speaking order. In Lincoln-Douglas that is the affirmative constructive, the negative constructive, then each rebuttal.
  2. Keep a separate sheet, or section, for each side's case. Responses to the affirmative go on the affirmative sheet next to the argument they answer.
  3. Write each argument's tag in a few words, with the warrant underneath. The tag tells you where you are; the warrant is what you will attack.
  4. Use two colours, one for each side, so you can see at a glance who said what.
  5. Leave space. Arguments grow across speeches, and a cramped flow is the one that loses track.

To skip ruling the columns by hand, print a free debate flow sheet with one column per speech for your format.

Abbreviations

You cannot write full sentences at speaking speed. Keep a short list and use it every time, so you can read your own flow under pressure:

  • Arrows for causes and leads to, and a crossed arrow for does not lead to.
  • Up and down arrows for increase and decrease.
  • Short forms for common words: gov for government, econ for economy, ev for evidence.
  • A circled letter or number for each contention, so responses can point to it.
  • A question mark for a warrant the speaker never explained.

Tracking dropped arguments

When an argument has nothing written next to it in the next column, it was dropped. Mark it straight away. In most formats a dropped argument is treated as conceded, and pointing that out is often the shortest path to winning a clash.

Check your own side too. Before each speech, look along your columns for anything of yours the other side answered that you have not yet responded to. Those are the gaps a good opponent will extend.

Use your flow to write speeches

Before you speak, look at the flow and decide which clashes you must win. Then speak down the flow in order, so the judge can follow each response to its argument. Your speech should trace the flow, not introduce random new material.

In British Parliamentary and World Schools, with more speakers and no fixed pairing of speeches, many debaters flow by clash rather than strictly by speech: a section for each main question in the debate, with every team's points on it.

How to get better at flowing

Flow recorded rounds and compare your flow with the speech afterwards to see what you missed. Start with slower speeches and build up. After a practice round, check whether anything you dropped was dropped by choice or by accident. To review the clashes after a round, rebuild them in the DebateOwl argument flowchart, where a dropped node shows what went unanswered.

Frequently asked questions

What does flowing mean in debate?

Taking notes on a round in columns, one per speech, so each argument can be followed from where it is made to where it is answered or dropped.

Should I flow on paper or a laptop?

Either works. Paper is easier for drawing arrows and links; a laptop is easier to keep tidy. Use whichever you can write on quickly and read under pressure.

What is a dropped argument?

An argument the other side never answered. In most formats a dropped argument is treated as conceded, so mark it on your flow and point it out.

How do I flow faster?

Use a consistent set of abbreviations, write tags and warrants rather than full sentences, and practise on recorded rounds before tournaments.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html b/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html index a423d637..0af3dfff 100644 --- a/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-practice-rebuttals/index.html @@ -17,36 +17,36 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Practice Debate Rebuttals

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Practice Debate Rebuttals

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

What is the best way to practise debate rebuttals?

Use short, frequent drills that copy the pressure of a round: arguments you did not write, a clock, and feedback on one thing. Three or four sessions of 20 to 30 minutes a week, each training one skill, beat one long session. New debaters should start with selection, picking the argument that decides the round, then move on to warrant attacks, grouping and weighing under time. Shadow rebuttals and flipping your own case work alone, while one-sentence answers and rapid fire need a partner. Score each speech on the same five questions to track progress.

A weekly drill plan

Four short sessions a week, each training one rebuttal skill: selection, warrant attacks, grouping, and weighing under time.

Drills that work alone or with a partner

Shadow rebuttals, flip-the-flow, one-sentence answers and rapid-fire rounds, with a version for solo practice and one for teams.

A way to measure progress

A five-point checklist to score each practice rebuttal, so you can tell whether the drills are changing your speeches.

Why rebuttal is a separate skill

Most debaters can write a decent case with enough time. Rebuttal is harder because it happens live: you hear an argument once, decide whether it matters, find the flaw, and explain it in under a minute while the judge is still listening. None of those steps improve by reading more about debate. They improve with repetitions that copy the pressure of a round.

Good rebuttal practice therefore has three features. It uses arguments you did not write, so you cannot rely on knowing the answer in advance. It runs against a clock, so you learn to choose. And it ends with feedback on one specific thing, so the next repetition is different from the last. The drills below are built around those three rules.

The shape of a rebuttal speech

The drills train four moves, and a finished rebuttal speech makes all four in this order:

  1. Select. Name the clash that decides the round and answer it first. Do not try to answer every argument.
  2. Attack the warrant. A claim without a warrant is an assertion, so break the reason they gave, not the conclusion they drew.
  3. Extend. Bring back your own strongest argument, show it survived their responses, and say what it still proves.
  4. Frame the ballot. End by telling the judge why your side wins the clash that matters. If you do not give them that story, they will write their own.

A four-session weekly plan

Each session takes 20 to 30 minutes. Run them in this order, because each one depends on the skill before it.

  1. Selection (Monday). Read or listen to a full opposing constructive. Without answering anything, write down the one argument that decides the round if it stands, and one sentence saying why. Repeat with three different speeches. The goal is to stop treating every argument as equally important.
  2. Warrant attacks (Tuesday). Take five opposing claims and, for each, write the reason the other side gives for it. Then write one sentence attacking that reason, not the claim. If you cannot find their warrant, your rebuttal is that they never gave one.
  3. Grouping (Thursday). Take a speech with six or more arguments and sort them into two or three groups that share an assumption. Answer each group once. This is the skill that saves the shortest rebuttal speeches in every format.
  4. Weighing under time (Friday). Give a full rebuttal speech against the clock, and finish with thirty seconds that compare your impact with theirs on one measure: probability, magnitude, timeframe or who is affected.

If you have a fifth session, use it for a full practice round so the separate skills come together in one speech.

Seven rebuttal drills

Shadow rebuttal

Watch a recorded round or read a transcript, pause after each constructive, and give the rebuttal you would have given. Then compare it with what the real speaker said. You get high-level opposing arguments without needing an opponent.

Flip the flow

Take your own case and rebut it as if you were on the other side. The weak points you find are the ones a good opponent will find too, so fix them before the round instead of during it.

One-sentence answers

A partner reads a claim; you have ten seconds to answer in one sentence. The drill trains you to lead with the response instead of with a long setup. Keep a list of the sentences that worked.

Rapid fire

A partner reads eight short arguments in two minutes. You have two minutes to answer them all. Most debaters run out of time on the first three, which is exactly the habit the drill is meant to break: group, prioritise, move on.

Response ladder

For one argument, write five different responses: deny the claim, attack the warrant, mitigate the impact, turn it and outweigh it. Then rank them. Practising all five shows you which kind of response you lean on too much.

Drop audit

After a practice round, go through your flow and circle every opposing argument you did not answer. For each one, decide whether dropping it was a choice or an accident. Accidents are what you drill next.

Spar the predicted case

In DebateOwl, generate a case on your side and read the predicted opponent case. Paste the strongest opposing argument into Attack to see where it breaks, then run a Sparring round and answer it live. The verdict tells you whether your answer changed the outcome.

Worked example: from first attempt to clean rebuttal

Motion: This house would lower the voting age to 16

Opposing argument: Sixteen-year-olds lack the life experience to make informed political choices, so lowering the voting age would worsen the quality of democratic decisions.

First attempt: That is not true, plenty of sixteen-year-olds are very mature and some adults are not informed either, so it is unfair to single out young people.

What went wrong: The answer is a counter-assertion followed by a fairness point. It never names the opponent's warrant (experience produces better choices) or explains why the judge should doubt it.

Rebuilt response: Their argument needs experience to be the thing that makes a vote informed. But we do not test experience for any other voter. Information comes from education, and sixteen-year-olds are still in school, studying the systems they would vote on.

Weighing line: Even if some young voters are less informed, that harm is small and spread thin, while excluding a whole age group from decisions that affect them for longest is certain and lasting.

Timed version: Forty seconds: name their warrant, show it is not applied to anyone else, give the alternative mechanism, close with the weighing.

The rebuilt version is not more clever than the first attempt. It is more organised: it names what the opponent needs, explains why they do not have it, and tells the judge what that means for the round.

Build a block file

A block is a short prepared answer to an argument you expect, and a block file is your collection of them. Good blocks make rebuttals faster and more precise, because the thinking happens before the round and the speech only has to adapt it.

  1. Organise by clash, not by source. Put every answer to "the policy costs too much" under one heading, whichever card it uses.
  2. Write blocks for both sides of each clash, since you will usually debate both.
  3. Give each block a tag, two to four numbered answers, the evidence for each, and a closing weighing line.
  4. Keep each block short enough to read in under a minute, so you can use two or three in one speech.
  5. After every tournament, rewrite the blocks that failed and add the arguments you did not expect.

Example block: answering "a four-day school week saves money"

1. Savings are small: buses and some staff costs fall, but salaries, which are most of a school budget, do not.

2. Costs move to families, who pay for childcare on the fifth day.

3. Even if the school saves money, it is buying the saving with less teaching time, which is the thing schools exist to provide.

Weighing line: A small budget saving does not outweigh a lasting loss of learning time.

AI is useful for the first draft of a block file: ask for the arguments you are likely to face and a first answer to each. Then check every factual claim against an original source and rewrite the answers in your own words, so you can deliver them without reading.

How to judge your own practice

Record your practice rebuttals, or have a partner listen, and score each speech on five questions. Give one point for each yes.

  • Did I answer the argument that decided the round first?
  • Did each response attack a warrant, or at least say which part of the argument it targets?
  • Did I group similar arguments instead of answering them one by one?
  • Did I explain why my response matters for the decision, not just that it is true?
  • Did I finish inside the time without rushing the last point?

A score of three is a solid novice rebuttal; five is what you are aiming for before a tournament. Track the scores across a few weeks. If one question keeps getting a no, drop the other drills and run the one that trains it.

Format notes for timing practice

Public Forum (PF)

Rebuttals are four minutes. The second-speaking team usually spends part of that time answering responses to its own case, so practise a split: about two and a half minutes on offence and a minute and a half rebuilding. The DebateOwl timer has a Public Forum preset for the full speech order.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

The four-minute first affirmative rebuttal must answer a seven-minute negative constructive. Practise grouping and cross-applying your framework until you can cover every major argument with time left for one extension.

World Schools (WSDC)

Rebuttal runs through every substantive speech. Practise opening each speech with ninety seconds to two minutes of rebuttal before your own material, and for third speakers, practise organising the whole debate into two or three clashes.

British Parliamentary (BP)

With seven-minute speeches and four teams, the drill that matters most is selection: which of the previous speeches' arguments actually need an answer from your position. Practise naming the bench you are responding to before each response.

Frequently asked questions

How often should I practise rebuttals?

Short, frequent sessions work better than one long one. Three or four sessions of 20 to 30 minutes a week, each focused on one skill, will improve a rebuttal faster than a single full practice round.

Can I practise rebuttals without a partner?

Yes. Shadow rebuttals from recorded rounds, flipping your own case and answering a predicted opponent case all work alone. An AI opponent adds a responsive voice when no partner is available.

What should I practise first as a new debater?

Selection. Learn to pick the one or two arguments that decide the round before you work on speed or style. Answering the right argument badly still beats answering the wrong one well.

How do I know if my rebuttal practice is working?

Score each practice speech on the same five questions: right argument first, warrant attacked, arguments grouped, impact explained, finished on time. Rising scores over a few weeks mean the drills are working.

How should I structure a rebuttal speech?

Answer the clash that decides the round first, attack the warrants rather than the claims, extend your own strongest argument, and finish by telling the judge why your side wins.

Should I memorise rebuttals?

Memorise the structure and a few strong lines, not whole speeches. In round you need to adapt each response to what the opponent actually said.

What is a block file?

A collection of short prepared answers to the arguments you expect, organised by clash and written for both sides, so rebuttals start from tested material.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html b/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html index 18098e1f..f500e885 100644 --- a/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament

Plan the two weeks before, spend in-round prep on purpose, and arrive with a routine for every round.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Prepare for a Debate Tournament

Plan the two weeks before, spend in-round prep on purpose, and arrive with a routine for every round.

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you prepare for a debate tournament?

Give a new topic about two weeks. In the first, read both sides, list the likely clashes and write a short case for each side. In the second, write blocks against the arguments you expect and run practice rounds at real speech times. Stop adding material two days out and check every source instead. In round, save most of your prep time for the final speeches, where you choose what to collapse to. For impromptu formats, practise building cases inside the real prep window.

A two-week plan

What to research, write and practise each week once the topic or motion area is known.

Prep time by format

How much preparation each format allows and when it happens, from the timer's format data.

Tournament-day routine

What to check before each round, what to bring, and how to reset between rounds.

Two weeks out: research and cases

For formats with a published topic, such as Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and Policy, the work starts when the topic is released. Read broadly on both sides before you write anything, because you will usually debate both. List the three or four clashes the topic seems to turn on, and note which ones have strong evidence on each side.

Then write a case for each side. Keep each one short enough to finish in the constructive time with room to spare, and mark every claim that still needs evidence. For impromptu formats such as British Parliamentary and many World Schools rounds, you cannot prepare the motion, so prepare the ground instead: read the news on likely motion areas and practise building a case in the prep time you will get.

One week out: blocks and practice rounds

Use the second week to write blocks, which are short prepared answers to the arguments you expect. The rebuttal practice guide explains how to build and organise a block file. Run at least two full practice rounds on each side at real speech times, and rewrite the part of the case that lost each one.

Two days before, stop adding material. Print or download what you need, check every quoted card against its source, and practise the first speech until you can give it without reading every word.

Prep time by format

How much preparation you get, and when, changes how you should prepare. These figures are the defaults the free debate timer uses; tournaments can change them, so check the invitation.

FormatPreparationWhen it happens
Public Forum3 minutes per teamDuring the round, between speeches
Lincoln-Douglas4 minutes per debaterDuring the round, between speeches
Policy8 minutes per teamDuring the round, between speeches
British Parliamentary15 minutesBefore the round, after the motion is released
World SchoolsAbout 1 hour for impromptu motionsBefore the round; prepared motions are released weeks ahead
Asian Parliamentary30 minutesBefore the round

The in-round figures follow the NSDA High School Unified Manual, and the BP figure follows the WUDC Debating & Judging Manual.

Spending in-round prep well

A prep bank is the total time a side may use between speeches. The usual mistake is spending it early, on the speech that matters least. Save most of it for the speeches where you have to choose what to collapse to, such as summary and final focus in Public Forum or the 2NR and 2AR in Policy.

Use prep for decisions, not research. In a minute of prep you can decide which clash to go for, order your responses and write the weighing line; you cannot read a new article properly. If you need new evidence mid-round, your preparation before the tournament missed something, and the fix belongs in next week's plan.

Worked example: a two-week plan on one resolution

Practice resolution: Resolved: National parks should cap daily visitor numbers

Days 1 to 3: Read on both sides and list the clashes: protecting ecosystems, fair access for people who cannot book ahead, and the effect on towns that depend on park visitors.

Days 4 to 7: Write a pro case on ecosystem damage and a con case on fair access, two contentions each, and mark the evidence each claim still needs.

Days 8 to 11: Write blocks against the three arguments you expect most, including the claim that timed entry already solves crowding. Run one practice round on each side.

Days 12 and 13: Fix what lost the practice rounds and check every card against its source.

In round, Public Forum: Keep at least two of the three prep minutes for summary and final focus, where you choose between the ecosystem and access clashes.

Tournament-day checklist

  • Your cases and blocks for both sides, on paper or offline, plus a charger.
  • Pens, paper for flowing, a timer, water and food for the gaps between rounds.
  • The schedule and room list, and the judge's paradigm if your tournament publishes one, read before the round starts.
  • A two-line note after each round: why you won or lost, and one thing to change in the next round.

Mental stamina matters. A short routine between rounds, such as eating, reading your note and checking the next pairing, keeps a bad round from carrying into the next one.

Common mistakes

  • Preparing only the side you prefer and meeting the other one for the first time in round.
  • Adding new material the night before instead of practising what you already have.
  • Spending prep time early on constructive tweaks and arriving at the final speech with none left.
  • Using prep to look for evidence rather than to decide strategy.
  • Skipping the judge's paradigm when the tournament publishes one.

A 15-minute prep-time drill

  1. Set the timer to your format's prep bank, for example three minutes for Public Forum.
  2. Read a speech you need to answer, from a practice round or a recording, and start the prep clock.
  3. Spend no more than a third of the bank, then stop and give your speech.
  4. Repeat for the final speech with the rest of the bank, choosing one clash to collapse to before you start talking.
  5. Afterwards, write down which prep decision changed the speech most. That is where prep time is worth spending.

DebateOwl helps with the two weeks before. Brainstorm explores angles for both sides of a topic, Case Generator drafts a structured case to start from, and Sparring runs full practice rounds in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and School 4-6-6-3 with a judged verdict.

Frequently asked questions

How far ahead should I start preparing for a tournament?

Start when the topic is released, and give yourself at least two weeks for a new topic: one for research and cases, one for blocks and practice rounds.

How should I split prep time in a round?

Spend little on the early speeches and save most of it for the final ones, where you decide what to collapse to and how to weigh it.

How do I prepare for impromptu motions?

Read the news on likely motion areas, practise building a case inside the real prep time, and drill each speaker role so the team can adapt to any motion.

Should I write new arguments the night before?

No. Use the last two days to check sources and practise the material you have; new arguments written late are usually the ones that fail under cross-examination.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html b/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html index eb404611..73752c03 100644 --- a/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-weigh-in-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Weigh in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Weigh in Debate

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you weigh arguments in a debate?

Compare your impact with your opponent's on a named measure and say why that measure matters. The six common measures are magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility, scope and link strength. Which one is strongest depends on the round, but probability and link strength often persuade more than magnitude, because every team claims its impact is huge. When their impact wins on one measure and yours on another, explain why your measure should count more here. Start weighing in your first speech and build on it in rebuttal, rather than saving it for the end.

Six ways to compare impacts

Magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility, scope and link strength, with when each one is the right comparison.

Weighing the weighing

What to say when your impact wins on one measure and theirs wins on another.

Weighing in every speech

Where weighing belongs in the constructive, the rebuttal and the final speech, so the judge never decides without it.

Why weighing wins rounds

Most rounds end with both sides holding some offence. When that happens, the judge needs a reason to prefer one impact over the other. Weighing gives that reason. Without it, the judge has to compare the impacts alone, and a judge left to decide will not always pick yours.

Weighing is also called impact calculus: comparing impacts on a set of measures to show which one should decide the round. The name differs between circuits; the skill is the same.

The six measures

  • Magnitude: how big is the impact for the people it affects?
  • Probability: how likely is it to happen at all?
  • Timeframe: how soon does it happen, and does an earlier harm prevent or worsen a later one?
  • Reversibility: can it be undone if we get it wrong?
  • Scope: how many people does it reach, and who are they?
  • Link strength: how certain is the causal chain from the motion to the impact?

Magnitude is the measure debaters reach for first and the one judges trust least, because every team claims its impact is huge. Probability and link strength often do more work, because they are about the argument the judge just heard rather than a prediction.

Compare, do not just describe

Saying your impact is large is description. Weighing is comparison: your impact against theirs, on a named measure, with a reason. A useful pattern has three parts:

  1. Name the measure: "Prefer our impact on probability."
  2. Compare directly: "Our harm is happening now, in every school that uses the policy; theirs depends on three things going wrong in sequence."
  3. Say why the measure matters: "A certain harm should outweigh a speculative one, because the judge cannot weigh what may never happen."

When their impact wins on one measure and yours on another, weigh the weighing. Explain why your measure should count more in this round, for example why an irreversible harm outweighs a larger reversible one.

Worked example

Motion: This house would ban fossil fuel advertising

Proposition impact: Advertising slows the shift away from fossil fuels, adding to long-term climate harm.

Opposition impact: A ban sets a precedent for restricting lawful speech, which governments can extend to other industries.

Weak weighing: "Climate change is the biggest problem humanity faces, so we win." Magnitude alone, with no comparison.

Strong weighing: "Even if the precedent concern is real, it is speculative: it needs future governments to choose to extend it. The climate harm is happening now and cannot be reversed. Prefer us on probability and reversibility."

The strong version concedes nothing it does not need to, names two measures and gives the judge a reason to use them.

When to weigh

Start in the constructive, so the judge hears your impact framed before the other side frames theirs. Reinforce it in rebuttal, where you compare each clash as you win it. Make it the centre of the final speech. Late weighing is better than none, but weighing that only appears at the end competes with a decision the judge has already begun to make.

In Public Forum, weighing should be in summary if you want it in final focus. In Lincoln-Douglas, weighing usually runs through the value and criterion. In World Schools, third speakers weigh the clashes and the reply speech weighs the whole debate. British Parliamentary has no reply speech, so the whips weigh the whole debate.

Practise weighing with DebateOwl

Run a Sparring round and read the verdict: it says which arguments decided the round and why, which shows whether your weighing changed the outcome. Ask the coach to compare two impacts on a named measure, then write your own version and say it against the timer.

Frequently asked questions

What is weighing in debate?

Comparing your impact with your opponent's to show the judge why yours should decide the round, using measures such as magnitude, probability, timeframe, reversibility, scope and link strength.

Is impact calculus the same as weighing?

Yes. Impact calculus is another name for weighing, used more often in American formats such as Policy and Public Forum.

Which weighing measure is strongest?

It depends on the round. Probability and link strength are often more persuasive than magnitude, because they compare the arguments the judge actually heard.

What if my impact loses on magnitude?

Weigh on a different measure and say why that measure matters more here, for example that your harm is certain and theirs is speculative.

When should I start weighing?

In the first speech. Early weighing frames the round; weighing that appears only in the final speech competes with a decision already forming.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html b/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html index 476180e6..723f1018 100644 --- a/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html +++ b/public/how-to-write-a-debate-case/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
How-to guide

How to Write a Debate Case

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
How-to guide

How to Write a Debate Case

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you write a debate case?

Start with the motion, not the arguments. Read it word by word, define the key terms fairly and write your burden in one sentence. Brainstorm widely, then keep two to four contentions, each built as claim, warrant, evidence, impact and weighing. Add a framework telling the judge how to decide, pre-empt the obvious response inside each contention, and read the case aloud against a timer until it fits. The format changes the details: Public Forum constructives usually fit two contentions, Lincoln-Douglas cases centre on a value and criterion, and BP closing teams prepare an extension instead.

Motion analysis first

Define the terms, name the burden and find the clashes before writing a single contention.

Contentions that hold up

Build each point as claim, warrant, evidence, impact and weighing, so a judge can follow it and an opponent cannot break it with one question.

A case you can defend

Pre-empt the obvious responses, cut what does not clash, and test the draft by attacking it yourself.

What a debate case is

A debate case is the argument your side will defend for the whole round, organised so a judge can follow it on first hearing. It is not an essay. An essay can explore; a case has to survive an opponent whose job is to find the weakest sentence in it. That is why good cases are built from small, testable parts: a clear position, a reason the judge should decide the round your way, and two to four contentions that each prove something specific.

The process below works for every format. The format changes the length, the number of contentions and who gives which part, which the format section covers further down.

Eight steps from motion to finished case

  1. Read the motion word by word. Note the actor (who does it), the action (what changes) and any word that sets the strength of the claim, such as should, would, ban, regulate or prioritise. A motion about regulating something is a different debate from one about banning it.
  2. Define the key terms in plain language. Pick definitions that are fair and that a judge would accept without argument. A squirrelled definition wins the definition debate and loses the round.
  3. Write your burden in one sentence: what does your side have to prove for the judge to vote for you? If you are proposing a policy, you usually need to show a problem, a mechanism and a net benefit. If you are opposing, you choose whether to defend the status quo, a counter-proposal or simply that the proposal does more harm than good.
  4. Brainstorm widely, then cut hard. List every argument for your side, group the ones that share a reason, and keep the two to four groups that are strongest and most different from each other.
  5. Build each contention as a chain: claim (what is true), warrant (why it is true), evidence (what supports the warrant), impact (why it matters) and weighing (why it matters more than what the other side will say).
  6. Write the framework: the standard the judge should use to decide. In Lincoln-Douglas it is a value and criterion; in most other formats it is a sentence on what the round should be about, such as who bears the cost or which outcome is more likely.
  7. Pre-empt the most obvious response to each contention inside the contention itself. One sentence is enough. It stops the opponent's best attack from looking new.
  8. Write it out, read it aloud against a timer, and cut until it fits with fifteen seconds to spare.

Worked example: a full case outline

Motion: This house would make public transport free

Side: Proposition.

Definitions: Public transport means buses, trams and local trains run or funded by government. Free means no fare at the point of use, paid for from general taxation.

Burden: Show that removing fares produces benefits greater than the cost of replacing fare revenue.

Framework: The round should be decided by who gains and who pays: a policy that shifts costs from those least able to pay towards those most able is preferable when the total benefit is comparable.

Contention 1, access: Claim: fares stop low-income people from reaching jobs and services. Warrant: transport is a fixed cost that takes a larger share of a small income. Impact: removing it widens the area in which people can work and study. Pre-emption: discounted passes exist, but they require applications and proof of eligibility that many eligible people never complete.

Contention 2, congestion and emissions: Claim: free fares move some journeys from cars to public transport. Warrant: price is one of the factors people weigh when choosing how to travel. Impact: fewer car journeys reduce congestion and emissions for everyone in the city.

Weighing: Contention 1 is the more certain benefit and reaches the people most affected, so it leads; contention 2 is larger in scale but less certain, so it is framed as an additional reason, not the case's foundation.

Likely opposition and prepared answer: Opposition will say the money is better spent on more frequent services. The answer: frequency helps people who already ride; free fares reach people currently priced out, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

Notice what the outline does not contain: a long introduction, rhetorical questions or a list of statistics without warrants. Every line either defines the debate, proves something or tells the judge how to compare.

How case structure changes by format

Public Forum (PF)

A four-minute constructive usually fits two contentions, each with evidence, and sometimes a short framework. Because you often do not know your side until shortly before the round, write a case for each side and keep them consistent in style. Put pre-emption into the second constructive if you speak second.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

The case is built around a value and a criterion, followed by contentions that each show how your side meets the criterion. A weak link between contention and criterion is the first thing a good negative will attack, so state it explicitly at the end of every contention.

British Parliamentary (BP)

Opening Government sets the definition and, for policy motions, a model: what exactly happens, who does it and how it is enforced. Opening Opposition responds to that model. Closing teams do not write a full case of their own; they prepare an extension, a new line of analysis the opening half did not cover.

World Schools (WSDC)

The case is split between the first and second speakers under a single team line. The first speaker gives definitions, the burden and usually the first argument; the second speaker gives the remaining arguments. Write the split before you write the arguments, so neither speaker repeats the other.

Checklist before you call the case finished

  • Can you state the whole case in two sentences?
  • Does every contention have a warrant you could explain without your notes?
  • Is every piece of evidence one you have read in the original, with a full citation?
  • Does each contention say why it matters more than what the other side will argue?
  • Have you written down the strongest response to each contention, and your answer to it?
  • Does it fit in the time with room to slow down?

If any answer is no, fix that before you practise delivery. Polishing the speech of a case with a missing warrant only makes the gap harder to see.

Where DebateOwl helps

Once you have a draft, attack it before an opponent does. Paste a contention into Attack to see which link breaks first, use Brainstorm when you need more angles at step four, and use Factoids to research a single statement you want to rely on. If you would rather start from a structure, the case generator produces a draft with a thesis, framework, contentions and a predicted opposing case, which you can then cut and rewrite with the steps above.

Frequently asked questions

How many contentions should a debate case have?

Usually two to four. Public Forum constructives often fit two; formats with longer speeches can take three or four. Fewer well-defended contentions beat many thin ones.

What is the difference between a claim and a warrant?

The claim is what you say is true; the warrant is the reason it is true. Judges vote on warrants, so a claim without one is an assertion that the other side can dismiss.

How long does it take to write a debate case?

A first draft can take an hour once you have researched the topic. Expect to revise it several times after practice rounds expose its weak points.

Should I write my case word for word?

In formats with prepared constructives, such as Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas, most debaters do. In impromptu formats like BP and WSDC, prepare an outline and key lines instead.

How do I make a case harder to attack?

Explain every warrant, use evidence you have checked, pre-empt the most obvious response inside each contention, and attack the draft yourself before the round.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/humans.txt b/public/humans.txt index 6bafcf55..58da4d3b 100644 --- a/public/humans.txt +++ b/public/humans.txt @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ DebateOwl Site: https://debateowl.com/ Purpose: AI debate preparation for students and competitive debaters. -Key pages: /, /ai-debate-practice, /ai-debate-case-generator, /debate-rebuttal-practice, /debatelab-pricing +Key pages: /, /ai-debate-practice, /ai-debate-case-generator, /debate-rebuttal-practice, /debateowl-pricing diff --git a/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html b/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html index c347159c..4ac28121 100644 --- a/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html +++ b/public/lincoln-douglas-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you build a Lincoln-Douglas debate case?

Choose a value the resolution should be judged by and a criterion narrow enough to tell the judge which impacts count. Then write two or three contentions that each prove your side meets that criterion, and expect the negative to accept your framework and argue you fail it. Under NSDA rules the affirmative constructive is six minutes and the negative's is seven, which fits one framework and two or three contentions. Prepare cross-examination questions that pin down the opponent's framework, and blocks for the arguments you expect most.

The NSDA round

Seven speeches and cross-examinations at 6-3-7-3-4-6-3, with four minutes of prep per debater.

Framework that does work

A value and a criterion the rest of the case actually depends on, instead of a label at the top.

A worked example and its turn

One affirmative contention on an original practice resolution, and how a negative turns it under the same criterion.

The round at NSDA times

Lincoln-Douglas is one debater against one. The National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) writes resolutions that ask for a value judgment, and the topic changes several times a season. Under the NSDA High School Unified Manual, a round runs in this order:

SpeechWhoTime
Affirmative constructive (AC)Affirmative6 minutes
Cross-examinationNegative asks, affirmative answers3 minutes
Negative constructive (NC)Negative7 minutes
Cross-examinationAffirmative asks, negative answers3 minutes
First affirmative rebuttal (1AR)Affirmative4 minutes
Negative rebuttal (NR)Negative6 minutes
Second affirmative rebuttal (2AR)Affirmative3 minutes
Prep timeEach debater, used between speeches4 minutes

The time split explains most LD strategy. The affirmative speaks first and last but has 13 minutes of speeches to the negative's 13, and the 1AR has four minutes to answer seven minutes of NC. Some tournaments allow more prep than four minutes, so read the invitation. The free debate timer with the LD preset runs this order and keeps each debater's prep bank.

What the value and criterion are for

The value is the goal the resolution should be judged by, such as justice, wellbeing or liberty. The criterion, sometimes called the standard or value criterion, is the test the judge uses to decide which side achieves that value better. Together they are the framework, and in a close round the framework decides which arguments count at all.

A criterion earns its place when it is narrow enough to exclude some impacts. "Maximising wellbeing" lets almost anything in, so the round turns into a contest of the biggest numbers. "Protecting the least advantaged" tells the judge that a benefit to most people does not outweigh a serious harm to the worst off. The narrower test is easier to attack, but it also gives you a reason to win when the negative's offense is larger in raw terms.

Each contention should then show how the resolution meets the criterion. If a contention would win under any framework, it is fine, but it does not need your framework, and your opponent can ignore the framework debate entirely.

Worked example: one contention and the turn

Practice resolution: Resolved: Cities ought to prioritize pedestrians over private cars when allocating street space

Value: Justice, defined as giving each person what they are owed as a member of the public.

Criterion: Protecting the least advantaged users of public space.

Contention 1: Streets are a shared public good, but car-first allocation gives most of that space to people who can afford a car. Children, many older people and people on low incomes travel on foot or by bus, so they get the least space and carry the most risk.

Impact under the criterion: Prioritizing pedestrians reallocates a public good toward the people the criterion says to protect first.

Negative turn: Accept the criterion and argue that the affirmative fails it. Many disabled people, rural commuters and night-shift workers without transit depend on cars, and they are among the least advantaged too. Pedestrian priority without replacement transit takes access from them.

Affirmative answer in the 1AR: Prioritizing is not banning: accessible parking, paratransit and delivery access stay. Then weigh: the affirmative helps more of the least advantaged, and the negative's harm can be fixed inside the affirmative world.

The turn works because it fights on the affirmative's own criterion. A negative who instead argued "economic growth matters more" would need to win a separate framework debate first, which costs time in a seven-minute NC.

Cross-examination in LD

Each debater gets one three-minute cross-examination. Spend it on the framework and on the one link you plan to attack. Useful questions get a commitment you can quote later: "Does your criterion let a benefit to the majority outweigh a harm to the worst off?" A yes or no either way gives you something for the next speech.

When you answer, keep replies short and stay consistent with the case. Conceding a definition is usually cheaper than defending a weak one for the whole round.

Common LD mistakes

  • A value and criterion that no contention mentions again. If the framework disappears after the first minute, the judge decides on impacts alone.
  • A criterion that is just the value restated, such as value "morality" and criterion "being moral". It gives the judge no test to apply.
  • An NC that only attacks. The negative needs offense of its own, or the affirmative can win on a small risk of its advantage.
  • A 1AR that tries to answer everything at the same depth. Group the NC's responses, answer the framework first, and extend one contention cleanly.
  • A 2AR that introduces new arguments. Judges discount them because the negative has no speech left to respond.

A 15-minute LD drill

  1. Two minutes: write a value and criterion for both sides of the current resolution, or the practice one above.
  2. Three minutes: for your affirmative, write one contention in three sentences, ending with how it meets the criterion.
  3. Four minutes: write the negative turn against that contention under the same criterion, as if you were the opponent.
  4. Four minutes: deliver a 1AR answer to the turn out loud, timed with the LD preset's 1AR slot.
  5. Two minutes: write one cross-examination question that would have set up the turn, and one that would have prevented it.

In DebateOwl, Case Attacker runs the same test on a full case: paste the affirmative and it points to the weakest link. Crossfire is a cross-examination drill, where the AI questions you about your case or answers your questions from the other side. Sparring runs LD rounds at the NSDA speech times with a judged verdict at the end; the cross-examination periods are left out, so pair it with a Crossfire drill.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a Lincoln-Douglas round?

The speeches and cross-examinations add up to 32 minutes. With four minutes of prep for each debater, a round takes about 40 minutes.

Do I need a value premise and a criterion in every LD case?

Most traditional LD judges expect both. Some circuits use a single standard or a framework argument instead, but the purpose is the same: give the judge a test for weighing the round.

Can the affirmative and negative use the same value?

Yes, and it is common. When both sides share a value, the round usually turns on the criterion or on who better meets the shared framework.

Why is the 1AR so hard?

It has four minutes to answer a seven-minute negative constructive and the negative's cross-examination. Grouping arguments and answering the framework first saves the most time.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/llms.txt b/public/llms.txt index 0d4ce9f6..e8e4639e 100644 --- a/public/llms.txt +++ b/public/llms.txt @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ DebateOwl runs at https://debateowl.com/. It is a separate product from debatela ## Main pages - [Home](https://debateowl.com/): what DebateOwl is, the 8 prep modes, pricing and FAQ -- [Pricing](https://debateowl.com/debatelab-pricing): trial, Pro and what each includes +- [Pricing](https://debateowl.com/debateowl-pricing): trial, Pro and what each includes - [Best AI debate tools](https://debateowl.com/best-ai-debate-tools): how to choose an AI debate tool - [Sitemap](https://debateowl.com/sitemap.xml): every public page @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ Free to use, no account needed, and they run in the browser. - [Debate Speech Structure and Delivery](https://debateowl.com/debate-speech-structure): How to structure constructive, rebuttal and final debate speeches, with speech times by format, a timed outline of one speech, delivery and pronunciation habits judges notice, common mistakes and a 15-minute drill. - [Debate Motion Analysis Guide](https://debateowl.com/debate-motion-analysis): How to analyze a debate motion: motion types and what each side must prove, fair definitions and models, stakeholders, a worked analysis of an original motion, common mistakes and a 15-minute drill. - [Best AI Debate Tools Compared](https://debateowl.com/best-ai-debate-tools): Compare the best AI debate tools for case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence research, flowcharts, coaching, and tournament preparation. -- [DebateOwl Pricing and Plans](https://debateowl.com/debatelab-pricing): DebateOwl pricing and plans for AI debate practice: free trial, Pro features, and what is included for students and competitive debaters. -- [DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep](https://debateowl.com/debatelab-vs-chatgpt): Compare DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for debate prep: structured workflows vs generic chat, evidence research, rebuttal drills, case generation, and coaching. -- [DebateOwl vs WinDebate](https://debateowl.com/debatelab-vs-windebate): Compare DebateOwl vs WinDebate: case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, format coverage, pricing, and workflow differences. -- [DebateOwl vs DebateClub](https://debateowl.com/debatelab-vs-debateclub): Compare DebateOwl vs DebateClub: voice debating, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, and workflow differences for competitive debaters. +- [DebateOwl Pricing and Plans](https://debateowl.com/debateowl-pricing): DebateOwl pricing and plans for AI debate practice: free trial, Pro features, and what is included for students and competitive debaters. +- [DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep](https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-chatgpt): Compare DebateOwl vs ChatGPT for debate prep: structured workflows vs generic chat, evidence research, rebuttal drills, case generation, and coaching. +- [DebateOwl vs WinDebate](https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-windebate): Compare DebateOwl vs WinDebate: case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, format coverage, pricing, and workflow differences. +- [DebateOwl vs DebateClub](https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-debateclub): Compare DebateOwl vs DebateClub: voice debating, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, and workflow differences for competitive debaters. diff --git a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html index 9d60e681..e99f518e 100644 --- a/public/online-debate-timer/index.html +++ b/public/online-debate-timer/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Timing guide

How Debate Speech Times Work in Each Format

Speech lengths, cross-examination and prep time for the main formats, and how to practise against the clock.

Published · Updated

Open the free debate timerStart practicing
+
Timing guide

How Debate Speech Times Work in Each Format

Speech lengths, cross-examination and prep time for the main formats, and how to practise against the clock.

Published · Updated

Open the free debate timerStart practicing

How long are debate speeches in each format?

It depends on the format. Public Forum has 4-minute constructives and rebuttals, 3-minute summaries and 2-minute final focus speeches. Lincoln-Douglas runs 6, 7, 4, 6 and 3 minutes. Policy uses 8-minute constructives and 5-minute rebuttals. British Parliamentary speeches are 7 minutes, and World Schools speeches are 8, followed by 4-minute replies. Cross-examination usually takes 3 minutes, and prep time varies by league, so check your tournament's rules. The free DebateOwl debate timer loads each of these speech orders for you.

Speech times by format

The speech order and lengths for Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, British Parliamentary and World Schools under their common rules.

Cross-ex and prep time

How long questioning periods and prep time run in each format, next to the speeches.

Drills against the clock

Short timed drills that build pacing, from thirty-second blocks to a full round in speaking order.

Timing changes strategy

A strong argument still loses if it arrives too late or runs too long. Speaking against the clock forces the choices a round will force anyway: which argument goes first, which one gets cut, and how much time the weighing needs.

Most debaters overestimate how much they can say in a minute. A timed run of a speech you thought was four minutes long usually shows where the time actually goes, and that is the first thing to fix.

Speech times by format

These are the speech lengths under each format's most common rules. Leagues and tournaments change them, so check the invitation before you practise.

  • Public Forum (NSDA): two 4-minute constructives, two 4-minute rebuttals, two 3-minute summaries and two 2-minute final focus speeches, with three 3-minute crossfires and 3 minutes of prep per team.
  • Lincoln-Douglas (NSDA): 6-minute affirmative constructive, 7-minute negative constructive, 4-minute first affirmative rebuttal, 6-minute negative rebuttal and 3-minute second affirmative rebuttal, with two 3-minute cross-examinations and 4 minutes of prep per debater.
  • Policy (NSDA): four 8-minute constructives, each followed by 3 minutes of cross-examination, then four 5-minute rebuttals, with 8 minutes of prep per team.
  • British Parliamentary (WUDC): eight 7-minute speeches. Points of information are allowed except in the first and last minute, and teams prepare for 15 minutes before the round.
  • World Schools (WSDC): six 8-minute substantive speeches with the first and last minute protected, then two 4-minute reply speeches, Opposition first.

The free debate timer runs any of these speech orders, cross-examination, crossfire and prep time included, with no account. It also has Asian Parliamentary and the school 4-6-6-3 format.

What the DebateOwl timer covers

Inside the DebateOwl app, choose a format and the timer loads its speech order. Each speech has its own length, and moving to the next speaker resets the clock for that speech.

  • Standard (4-6-6-3): introductor, two refutation speeches and a conclusor.
  • Lincoln-Douglas: 6-minute affirmative constructive, 7-minute negative constructive, 4-minute first affirmative rebuttal, 6-minute negative rebuttal and 3-minute second affirmative rebuttal.
  • Public Forum: four 4-minute constructive and rebuttal speeches, two 3-minute summaries and two 2-minute final focus speeches.
  • Policy: four 8-minute constructives and four 5-minute rebuttals.

The app presets cover speeches only, with no cross-examination, crossfire or prep time on the clock, and there is no World Schools or British Parliamentary preset. The free debate timer covers all of those.

Drills to run against the clock

  1. Thirty-second blocks. Deliver one prepared rebuttal block in thirty seconds. If it runs over, cut the setup, not the response.
  2. Full speech. Give a whole constructive at its real length. Note where the one-minute beep lands; if you are still on your first argument, the structure needs work.
  3. Short-clock rebuttal. Give a rebuttal with a minute less than the format allows. The real speech will then feel like it has room for weighing.
  4. Cross-ex timing. Run a three-minute question period against the clock and count how many questions actually led somewhere.
  5. Full round order. Step through the whole format with a partner, using the arrow keys to move between speakers, so you practise the gaps as well as the speeches.

Drill one skill per session. A timer shows how long a speech took, not why, so the next step matters as much as the timing.

Pair timing with feedback

After each timed speech, write down three things: where the one-minute signal caught you, what you cut, and what you would cut next time. Then fix one of them and run the speech again.

For feedback on the content, run the same speech in a Sparring round in DebateOwl. The verdict says which arguments carried the round and which ones the judge did not weigh, which is usually where the time went.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a debate speech?

Between two and eight minutes, depending on the format and the speech. Public Forum final focus speeches are the shortest at two minutes; Policy constructives and World Schools substantive speeches run eight.

Which formats does the free debate timer support?

Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, British Parliamentary, World Schools, Asian Parliamentary and the school 4-6-6-3 format, and you can build your own. The timer inside the DebateOwl app has presets for Standard 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and Policy.

Does the timer include prep time or cross-examination?

The free debate timer does: it times cross-examination and crossfire as part of the round and keeps a prep bank for each side in Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas and Policy. The timer inside the DebateOwl app times speeches only.

Can I use the timer without looking at the screen?

Yes. It beeps once at one minute remaining and twice at time up, and you can turn the sound on or off.

What keyboard shortcuts does the timer have?

Space starts and stops the clock, R resets it, and the arrow keys change speaker.

How often should I practise against a timer?

Every time you practise a speech. Short timed drills several times a week build pacing faster than one long session.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/policy-debate/index.html b/public/policy-debate/index.html index 538dd0e5..fb0cfcce 100644 --- a/public/policy-debate/index.html +++ b/public/policy-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

Policy Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

Policy Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

What do you need to prepare for policy debate?

Prepare an affirmative plan with advantages you can defend under cross-examination, and a negative strategy that does not depend on one argument. Most negatives pair a counterplan with a net-benefit disadvantage, so research both and the permutation answers to them. Write frontlines for the off-case positions you expect, and check topicality against your own plan text. NSDA rounds run eight-minute constructives, three-minute cross-examinations and five-minute rebuttals, with eight minutes of prep per team.

The 8-3-5 round

Four constructives, four cross-examinations and four rebuttals, with eight minutes of prep per team.

What each position must prove

The parts of a plan, a disadvantage, a counterplan, topicality and a kritik, and where each one is usually weak.

A worked 1NC and 2NR

An original practice resolution, an example plan, the negative's off-case positions and how the round collapses.

The round at NSDA times

Policy debate, also called CX, is two debaters against two. The affirmative proposes a plan that meets the resolution and the negative argues it should not be adopted. The resolution stays the same for the whole school year, so teams build large research files and the evidence is detailed. The NSDA Policy Debate page and the High School Unified Manual set this order:

SpeechWhoTime
First affirmative constructive (1AC)Affirmative8 minutes
Cross-examinationNegative asks the 1AC speaker3 minutes
First negative constructive (1NC)Negative8 minutes
Cross-examinationAffirmative asks the 1NC speaker3 minutes
Second affirmative constructive (2AC)Affirmative8 minutes
Cross-examinationNegative asks the 2AC speaker3 minutes
Second negative constructive (2NC)Negative8 minutes
Cross-examinationAffirmative asks the 2NC speaker3 minutes
First negative rebuttal (1NR)Negative5 minutes
First affirmative rebuttal (1AR)Affirmative5 minutes
Second negative rebuttal (2NR)Negative5 minutes
Second affirmative rebuttal (2AR)Affirmative5 minutes
Prep timeEach team, used between speeches8 minutes

Each debater gives one constructive and one rebuttal, asks once and answers once. The 2NC and 1NR run back to back, so the negative gets 13 uninterrupted minutes, called the negative block, and the 1AR has five minutes to answer all of it. Older material lists five minutes of prep and some state circuits still use four-minute rebuttals. The free debate timer with the Policy preset runs the NSDA order with both prep banks.

What each position has to prove

The affirmative plan

The 1AC reads a plan text and usually two or three advantages. An advantage needs a harm in the present system, a reason the present system will not solve it (inherency), and evidence that the plan solves it (solvency). The plan text matters more than new debaters expect: the negative will quote it word for word to argue topicality or to write a counterplan around it.

Disadvantage (DA)

A disadvantage says the plan causes something bad. It has four parts: uniqueness (the bad thing is not happening now), a link (the plan triggers it), an internal link and an impact. Most DAs are weakest at uniqueness or at the link, and the 2AC should name which.

Counterplan (CP)

A counterplan is a different way to get the affirmative's advantages. It must compete: it has to be a reason to reject the plan, not just an addition to it. The usual test is a permutation, where the affirmative argues it could do both. A counterplan paired with a disadvantage that only the plan triggers, called the net benefit, is the most common negative strategy.

Topicality (T) and kritiks (K)

Topicality argues that the plan falls outside the resolution, with an interpretation of a word, a violation, standards and a reason to vote. A kritik challenges an assumption the affirmative makes, with a link, an impact and an alternative. Both are judged by different standards in different regions, so ask the judge's preferences before the round.

Worked example: a 1NC and how it collapses

Practice resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase funding for public library systems in the United States

Plan: A federal grant program that pays public library systems to extend evening and weekend hours and to lend internet hotspots.

Advantage: Households without home internet rely on libraries to apply for jobs and public services; longer hours and lending widen that access.

1NC off-case 1, states counterplan: The fifty states fund the same hours and lending programs through their own library agencies.

1NC off-case 2, net benefit DA: A new federal grant program expands federal control of a local service; the link is the plan's grant conditions.

1NC on case: Solvency press: longer hours do not help households whose problem is transport, not opening times.

2AC answer: Permute: do both. Then a solvency deficit: states fund unevenly, so the counterplan leaves the poorest areas out, and those are the advantage's harm.

2NR collapse: Go for the counterplan and the DA only. Drop the solvency press and spend the five minutes on why the permutation still links to the DA.

1AR and 2AR: Extend the permutation and the solvency deficit from the 2AC, then weigh the deficit against the net benefit. No new answers this late.

The 2NR rarely goes for everything in the 1NC. Choosing what to drop, and saying so clearly, keeps the final negative speech deep enough to win the one comparison that decides the round.

Common Policy mistakes

  • Reading cards without explaining them. A judge who cannot tell what a card proves gives it little weight, however strong the source.
  • A 2AC that answers every off-case position with the same generic responses. Name the weakest part of each DA and CP instead.
  • Conceding the permutation by never answering it in the block.
  • A 2NR that extends five positions at the same depth. Most winning 2NRs go for one or two.
  • Asking cross-examination questions that do not set up the next speech. Each question should come back as an argument.

A 15-minute Policy drill

  1. Four minutes: write a disadvantage against your own plan, with one sentence each for uniqueness, link, internal link and impact.
  2. Two minutes: read it aloud as if it were in the 1NC.
  3. Five minutes: write a 2AC frontline of four answers, labelled by the part of the DA each one attacks.
  4. Three minutes: deliver the frontline, timed against the Policy preset's 2AC slot so you can see how much of eight minutes it would take.
  5. One minute: write the answer you would extend in the 1AR if you had time for only one.

DebateOwl can do the opponent's half. Case Generator drafts an affirmative from the resolution, Case Attacker points to the weakest links in a plan or a disadvantage, and Factoids finds evidence leads with citations to read in full before you cut a card. Sparring does not run Policy rounds, so use the free timer for full-round practice with a partner.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a Policy debate round?

The speeches and cross-examinations take 64 minutes. With eight minutes of prep per team, a round runs about 80 minutes before any decision.

What is the negative block?

The second negative constructive and the first negative rebuttal, which run back to back. The negative usually splits positions between the two speeches so the 1AR has to answer both.

Does a counterplan have to be competitive?

Yes. If the affirmative can do the plan and the counterplan together without losing anything, the counterplan is not a reason to reject the plan.

Do I have to speak fast in Policy?

No. Many circuits debate quickly, but speed only helps if the judge can follow it. Ask for the judge's preferences and adjust.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/public-forum-debate/index.html b/public/public-forum-debate/index.html index 501407b9..924ac8e5 100644 --- a/public/public-forum-debate/index.html +++ b/public/public-forum-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

Public Forum Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How do you prepare for a Public Forum debate round?

Write cases for both sides, because you often learn your side shortly before the round. A constructive is four minutes, so plan two contentions with warrants and evidence. Decide in advance which one or two issues you would collapse to, since anything you want in final focus has to be in summary first. Treat crossfire as questioning that sets up your next speech. How you present depends on the judge: for lay judges, run fewer arguments, signpost clearly and speak at a normal pace. Under common rules, speeches run 4-4-3-2 minutes with three 3-minute crossfires.

The PF round, speech by speech

What each of the eight speeches and three crossfires is for, with the standard times.

Summary and final focus that agree

How to collapse to two issues in summary and extend exactly those into final focus.

Practice with real PF times

Run full Public Forum rounds against an AI opponent at 4-4-3-2 speech times, and drill cross-examination separately.

How a Public Forum round works

Public Forum is a two-on-two format built for a general audience. Resolutions are about current issues, speeches are short, and judges are often parents, teachers or community members rather than former competitors. That shapes everything: a PF case wins by being clear and well evidenced, not by being fast or technical.

Before the round, a coin toss decides which team chooses first between side (pro or con) and speaking order. Under the common NSDA rules, a round runs like this:

  1. First speaker, team A: constructive, 4 minutes.
  2. First speaker, team B: constructive, 4 minutes.
  3. First crossfire between the two first speakers, 3 minutes.
  4. Second speaker, team A: rebuttal, 4 minutes.
  5. Second speaker, team B: rebuttal, 4 minutes.
  6. Second crossfire between the two second speakers, 3 minutes.
  7. First speaker, team A: summary, 3 minutes.
  8. First speaker, team B: summary, 3 minutes.
  9. Grand crossfire between all four debaters, 3 minutes.
  10. Second speaker, team A: final focus, 2 minutes.
  11. Second speaker, team B: final focus, 2 minutes.

Each team also has a few minutes of preparation time to use between speeches, usually three. Check your league's rules, because some tournaments vary times and evidence rules.

The free debate timer runs this whole order, crossfires and each team's prep time included.

What each speech has to do

Constructive

Present your case: usually two contentions, each with a claim, a warrant, evidence and an impact. Many teams add a short framework that tells the judge how to weigh the round. The second constructive can include a few responses to the first if time allows.

Rebuttal

Answer the opponent's case. The team speaking second should also answer the attacks already made on its own case, because arguments left unanswered after second rebuttal are very hard to bring back.

Summary

Collapse. Choose the one or two issues you are winning, extend them with their warrants and evidence, answer what the opponent said about them, and start weighing. Everything you want in final focus has to be in summary.

Final focus

Tell the judge why you win in two minutes. Extend only what was in your summary, weigh it against the opponent's best remaining argument, and give the judge a simple reason to sign the ballot.

Crossfire

Crossfire is a question period, not a speech. Use it to clarify the opponent's evidence, get them to commit to an assumption you will attack, and set up your next speech. Judges notice who stays calm and precise.

Worked example: one PF round in outline

Practice resolution: Resolved: Schools should replace letter grades with pass or fail grading

Pro contention 1: Letter grades push students toward safe courses they know they can ace; pass or fail grading encourages them to take harder classes and learn more.

Pro contention 2: Grade pressure is a leading source of student stress, and removing fine-grained grades reduces it without removing accountability.

Con contention 1: Letter grades give students specific feedback about how well they understood the material; pass or fail hides the difference between barely passing and mastery.

Con contention 2: Colleges and scholarships use grades to compare applicants; without them, they rely more on test scores and extracurriculars that favour wealthier students.

First crossfire question from Pro: Is a letter grade the only way a teacher can tell a student how well they understood the material?

Pro summary collapse: Extend contention 1 and turn the con's feedback argument: comments and rubrics give better feedback than a single letter, so pass or fail grading loses nothing on feedback and gains course choice.

Con final focus weighing: Even if some students take harder courses, the equity harm in admissions affects every student who applies, and it falls on those with the fewest alternatives.

The round is decided by which team frames the comparison between learning (Pro) and fair admissions (Con), and keeps that frame consistent from summary to final focus.

Five habits of strong PF teams

  • They write cases for both sides, because they often learn their side only shortly before the round.
  • They read evidence carefully and can produce the full source if asked. Evidence disputes are common in PF, and a misrepresented card can lose the round.
  • They plan the collapse before the round: which contention each side would collapse to, and why.
  • They weigh from the rebuttal onward instead of saving it for final focus.
  • They adapt to lay judges: fewer arguments, clear signposting, a normal speaking pace and a story the judge can repeat.

Common PF mistakes

  • Bringing new arguments into final focus that were not in summary. Most judges ignore them.
  • Spending crossfire making speeches instead of asking questions.
  • Second rebuttal that only attacks and never defends the team's own case.
  • Summaries that try to extend everything and end up extending nothing well.
  • Evidence quoted without author, date or source, which invites a challenge you cannot answer.

Practising Public Forum in DebateOwl

Sparring runs Public Forum rounds with pro and con constructives, rebuttals, summaries and final focuses at the 4-4-3-2 times above, ending with a judged verdict. The simulated round leaves out the crossfire periods, so practise questioning separately in Crossfire. Despite the shared name, that feature is a cross-examination drill: you either question the AI, which answers from the opposing side, or let it question you about your case.

A useful preparation loop: start a Current Debate with the resolution, generate a case for each side, paste the opposing case into Attack to find its weakest links, run a Sparring round on your assigned side, and finish by checking whether your final focus extended only what your summary did. The timer's Public Forum preset covers the same eight speeches when you practise with a partner.

Frequently asked questions

How long is a Public Forum round?

The speeches and crossfires take 35 minutes, plus each team's preparation time, so most rounds run around 45 minutes.

How many contentions should a PF case have?

Usually two. A four-minute constructive rarely fits more than two contentions with proper warrants and evidence.

What is the difference between summary and final focus?

Summary narrows the round to the issues you are winning and begins the weighing. Final focus extends only those issues and tells the judge why they decide the ballot.

Can I bring up new arguments in final focus?

No. New arguments in final focus are generally ignored by judges, because the opponent has no chance to answer them. Anything you want in final focus should be in your summary.

How do I prepare for a lay judge in PF?

Run fewer arguments, explain each one plainly, signpost clearly, speak at a normal pace and end every speech with a simple reason to vote for you.

- +
- + diff --git a/public/world-schools-debate/index.html b/public/world-schools-debate/index.html index 71a94da4..277a9301 100644 --- a/public/world-schools-debate/index.html +++ b/public/world-schools-debate/index.html @@ -17,27 +17,27 @@ - + - +
- +
-
Format guide

World Schools Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl
+
Format guide

World Schools Debate Prep with AI

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

Published · Updated

Start practicingSee DebateOwl

How does World Schools debate work, and how should a team prepare?

Two teams of three speakers each give eight-minute substantive speeches, then each team gives a four-minute reply, opposition first, delivered by its first or second speaker. Prepare by interpreting the motion: define terms, give a model for policy motions, name the stakeholders and write each side's burden. Practise every role, because first, second, third and reply speakers owe the team different things. Motions are prepared or impromptu, so also practise preparing within an hour. Offer short Points of Information aimed at a warrant, and as a general rule accept at least two.

Motion interpretation

Define the model, the stakeholders and what each side has to prove before anyone writes a speech.

Team roles

What the first, second and third speakers and the reply speaker each owe the team, and how to practise each role.

POIs and reply speeches

Points of Information that test a warrant in fifteen seconds, and reply speeches that frame the debate without new arguments.

How a World Schools round works

World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) style has two teams of three speakers. Each speaker gives an eight-minute substantive speech, alternating from the proposition, and then each team gives a four-minute reply speech, opposition first. The reply is given by the first or second speaker, never the third.

Motions are either prepared, announced weeks ahead, or impromptu, with about an hour of preparation and no internet. Judges score style, content and strategy, so a well-organised team case can beat a collection of strong but disconnected arguments.

Start with the motion

WSDC motions are broad, so the first job is to interpret them. Define the terms, set out the model if the proposition is proposing a change, name the stakeholders, and say what each side must prove. Clear framing in the first speech shapes the rest of the debate.

  1. Define the key terms in a way a reasonable person would accept.
  2. If the motion asks for a policy, give a model: who does what, and what it does not cover.
  3. List the stakeholders and how the motion changes things for each.
  4. Write the burden for each side in one sentence.
  5. Identify the two or three clashes the debate is likely to turn on, and decide which speaker carries each one.

Team roles

First speaker

Sets up the debate: definitions, model, burdens and the team line, then the first arguments. The opposition first speaker also begins rebuttal.

Second speaker

Rebuts the other side's case and extends their own team's arguments with new material. This is usually the speech with the most new analysis.

Third speaker

Organises the debate into its main clashes, rebuts within each one and weighs. Responding is the main job: a third speaker may present a small part of the team case only if the first speaker announced it when setting out the team line.

Reply speaker

Gives a short, biased summary of the whole debate: where the clashes were and why their team won them. No new arguments, and no new rebuttal.

Practise each role separately. A speaker who can only do one job is a weak point when the team needs to change roles for an impromptu round.

Points of Information

Speakers on the other side can offer a Point of Information during a substantive speech, except in the first and last minute, which are protected. The speaker chooses whether to accept, and as a general rule should accept at least two. A good POI is short, under fifteen seconds, and aims at the warrant the speech depends on.

Answering POIs matters as much as offering them. Take one, answer it in a sentence, and return to your structure. Turning down every POI usually looks evasive to judges.

Prepare for WSDC with DebateOwl

Use Brainstorm and case generation to map arguments for both sides of a prepared motion, and run motions under a one-hour limit to practise impromptu prep. Crossfire with the AI asking the questions is a way to rehearse taking POIs and answering briefly. Attack finds the weak links in each speaker's material before the round does.

DebateOwl Sparring does not yet run the full WSDC round, and the timer inside the app has no WSDC preset. The free debate timer does, with the protected first and last minute and both reply speeches.

Frequently asked questions

How long are speeches in World Schools debate?

Substantive speeches are eight minutes, and reply speeches are four minutes. Each team has three substantive speakers and one reply speech.

What is a Point of Information?

A short question or statement offered by the other team during a substantive speech, outside the protected first and last minute. The speaker decides whether to accept it.

Can the third speaker bring new arguments?

Only a small part of the team case, and only if the first speaker announced it when setting out the team line. The third speaker's main job is to rebut, organise the debate into clashes and weigh.

Who gives the reply speech?

The first or second speaker of each team, never the third. The opposition reply comes first.

How do I practise impromptu WSDC motions?

Set a one-hour timer, prepare a case with your team, and practise each role. Then review where the team line held and where it did not.

- +
- + diff --git a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py index a0c19d67..335ba2db 100644 --- a/scripts/generate_seo_content.py +++ b/scripts/generate_seo_content.py @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ # , so bump it only when the copy changes, not on every regeneration. # A guide whose own copy changed alone sets "modified" in seo_guides.py instead; # no page is dated earlier than CONTENT_DATE, since the shared copy is on every page. -CONTENT_DATE = "2026-10-26" +CONTENT_DATE = "2026-10-27" # The commit that first added every current guide (git log --diff-filter=A). # A new guide sets "published" in its PAGES entry. PUBLISHED_DATE = "2026-07-05" @@ -72,10 +72,10 @@ {"slug": "debate-speech-structure", "title": "Debate Speech Structure Guide | {product}", "description": "Learn debate speech structure for every format: opening, rebuttal, summary, final focus, crystallization, and reply speech organization.", "eyebrow": "Strategy guide", "h1": "Debate Speech Structure Guide", "lead": "Structure your speech so the judge can follow every argument and every comparison.", "features": ["Opening structure", "Rebuttal structure", "Final speech structure"], "sections": [["Why structure matters", ["A well-structured speech is easier to flow, easier to judge, and easier to win. The judge should never be confused about where you are."]], ["Opening speech structure", ["State your position, define key terms, present contentions with warrants and impacts, and preview weighing."]], ["Rebuttal and final speech structure", ["Respond to the key clash, extend your offense, weigh the comparison, and frame the ballot. End by telling the judge why you win."]]]}, {"slug": "debate-motion-analysis", "modified": "2026-10-23", "title": "Debate Motion Analysis Guide | {product}", "description": "Learn how to analyze a debate motion: define terms, identify burdens, map clashes, and build case strategy from the topic release.", "eyebrow": "Strategy guide", "h1": "Debate Motion Analysis Guide", "lead": "From topic to strategy: define, clash, and build a winning case.", "features": ["Definition strategy", "Burden identification", "Clash mapping"], "sections": [["How to analyze a motion", ["Read the motion carefully, define each term, identify what each side must prove, and map the likely clashes.", "To practice on a motion you have not seen, draw one from the [free debate motion generator](/tools/debate-motion-generator)."]], ["Definition strategy", ["Definitions can frame the round. Choose definitions that are fair, defensible, and favorable to your side."]], ["Burden identification", ["Your burden is what you must prove to win. If you do not meet your burden, you lose regardless of how well you argue."]]]}, {"slug": "best-ai-debate-tools", "title": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared | {product}", "description": "Compare the best AI debate tools for case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence research, flowcharts, coaching, and tournament preparation.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "Best AI Debate Tools Compared", "lead": "See how AI debate tools compare on features, formats, and prep workflows."}, - {"slug": "debatelab-pricing", "title": "{product} Pricing and Plans | {product}", "description": "{product} pricing and plans for AI debate practice: free trial, Pro features, and what is included for students and competitive debaters.", "eyebrow": "Pricing", "h1": "{product} Pricing and Plans", "lead": "See what {product} offers and how to get started with AI debate practice."}, - {"slug": "debatelab-vs-chatgpt", "title": "{product} vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs ChatGPT for debate prep: structured workflows vs generic chat, evidence research, rebuttal drills, case generation, and coaching.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep", "lead": "ChatGPT is a general chatbot. {product} is a debate practice workspace.", "features": ["Structured workflows", "Evidence leads", "Practice tools"], "sections": [["What ChatGPT does well", ["ChatGPT is a flexible general-purpose AI. It can brainstorm, draft, and answer questions about any topic, including debate."]], ["What {product} does differently", ["{product} is designed for debate prep workflows: case structure, targeted rebuttals, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and timed practice. Each workflow supports a specific prep task."]], ["When to use each", ["Use ChatGPT for general brainstorming and research. Use {product} for structured, repeatable debate practice that mirrors what you do in a round."]]]}, - {"slug": "debatelab-vs-windebate", "title": "{product} vs WinDebate Comparison | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs WinDebate: case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, format coverage, pricing, and workflow differences.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs WinDebate", "lead": "Two AI debate prep platforms compared on features and workflows.", "features": ["Feature comparison", "Format coverage", "Workflow differences"], "sections": [["WinDebate overview", ["WinDebate focuses on research, drills, feedback, and progress tracking for competitive debaters. It covers PF, LD, Congress, Policy, and Worlds."]], ["{product} overview", ["{product} focuses on structured prep workflows: case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and online debate timers."]], ["How to choose", ["Compare format coverage, feature depth, feedback style, pricing, and which tool fits your actual tournament workflow."]]]}, - {"slug": "debatelab-vs-debateclub", "title": "{product} vs DebateClub Comparison | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs DebateClub: voice debating, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, and workflow differences for competitive debaters.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs DebateClub", "lead": "Voice sparring vs structured prep: two approaches to AI debate practice.", "features": ["Voice vs text workflows", "Feature comparison", "Prep focus areas"], "sections": [["DebateClub overview", ["DebateClub focuses on voice-based AI debate sparring with real-time feedback in a conversational format."]], ["{product} overview", ["{product} focuses on text-based structured prep: cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice for tournament preparation."]], ["Which approach fits you", ["If you want voice practice, DebateClub is focused there. If you want structured prep workflows, {product} is designed for that."]]]}, + {"slug": "debateowl-pricing", "title": "{product} Pricing and Plans | {product}", "description": "{product} pricing and plans for AI debate practice: free trial, Pro features, and what is included for students and competitive debaters.", "eyebrow": "Pricing", "h1": "{product} Pricing and Plans", "lead": "See what {product} offers and how to get started with AI debate practice."}, + {"slug": "debateowl-vs-chatgpt", "title": "{product} vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs ChatGPT for debate prep: structured workflows vs generic chat, evidence research, rebuttal drills, case generation, and coaching.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs ChatGPT for Debate Prep", "lead": "ChatGPT is a general chatbot. {product} is a debate practice workspace.", "features": ["Structured workflows", "Evidence leads", "Practice tools"], "sections": [["What ChatGPT does well", ["ChatGPT is a flexible general-purpose AI. It can brainstorm, draft, and answer questions about any topic, including debate."]], ["What {product} does differently", ["{product} is designed for debate prep workflows: case structure, targeted rebuttals, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and timed practice. Each workflow supports a specific prep task."]], ["When to use each", ["Use ChatGPT for general brainstorming and research. Use {product} for structured, repeatable debate practice that mirrors what you do in a round."]]]}, + {"slug": "debateowl-vs-windebate", "title": "{product} vs WinDebate Comparison | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs WinDebate: case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, format coverage, pricing, and workflow differences.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs WinDebate", "lead": "Two AI debate prep platforms compared on features and workflows.", "features": ["Feature comparison", "Format coverage", "Workflow differences"], "sections": [["WinDebate overview", ["WinDebate focuses on research, drills, feedback, and progress tracking for competitive debaters. It covers PF, LD, Congress, Policy, and Worlds."]], ["{product} overview", ["{product} focuses on structured prep workflows: case generation, rebuttal practice, evidence leads, argument flowcharts, coaching prompts, and online debate timers."]], ["How to choose", ["Compare format coverage, feature depth, feedback style, pricing, and which tool fits your actual tournament workflow."]]]}, + {"slug": "debateowl-vs-debateclub", "title": "{product} vs DebateClub Comparison | {product}", "description": "Compare {product} vs DebateClub: voice debating, case generation, rebuttal drills, evidence research, and workflow differences for competitive debaters.", "eyebrow": "Comparison", "h1": "{product} vs DebateClub", "lead": "Voice sparring vs structured prep: two approaches to AI debate practice.", "features": ["Voice vs text workflows", "Feature comparison", "Prep focus areas"], "sections": [["DebateClub overview", ["DebateClub focuses on voice-based AI debate sparring with real-time feedback in a conversational format."]], ["{product} overview", ["{product} focuses on text-based structured prep: cases, rebuttals, evidence, flowcharts, coaching, and timed practice for tournament preparation."]], ["Which approach fits you", ["If you want voice practice, DebateClub is focused there. If you want structured prep workflows, {product} is designed for that."]]]}, ] def tool_keys(name): @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ def fill(value): "how-to-flow-in-debate", "debate-clash-points", "debate-speech-structure", "debate-fallacies", "debate-motion-analysis", "debate-judge-adaptation", "how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament", "debate-topics-for-students", ], - "Compare": ["best-ai-debate-tools", "debatelab-vs-chatgpt", "debatelab-vs-debateclub", "debatelab-vs-windebate", "debatelab-pricing"], + "Compare": ["best-ai-debate-tools", "debateowl-vs-chatgpt", "debateowl-vs-debateclub", "debateowl-vs-windebate", "debateowl-pricing"], } RELATED_SIBLINGS = 6 RELATED_CROSS = 2 @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ def fill(value): (r"AI (?:debate )?coach", "ai-debate-coach"), (r"AI opponents?|Sparring rounds?", "ai-debate-practice"), (r"generated rebuttals?|rebuttal generator", "ai-rebuttal-generator"), - (r"ChatGPT|general chatbot", "debatelab-vs-chatgpt"), + (r"ChatGPT|general chatbot", "debateowl-vs-chatgpt"), (r"debate topics|topic areas", "debate-topics-for-students"), (r"speech times?|timed practice", "online-debate-timer"), (r"weighing|weigh|compare impacts", "how-to-weigh-in-debate"), @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ def check_link_tables(): PHRASE_PATTERNS = [(re.compile(rf"\b(?:{phrase})\b", re.I), slug) for phrase, slug in LINK_PHRASES] ANSWERS = fill(ANSWERS) -NAV = [("AI practice","/ai-debate-practice"),("Case generator","/ai-debate-case-generator"),("Rebuttal practice","/debate-rebuttal-practice"),("Evidence finder","/debate-evidence-finder"),("Pricing","/debatelab-pricing"),("Open app","/app")] +NAV = [("AI practice","/ai-debate-practice"),("Case generator","/ai-debate-case-generator"),("Rebuttal practice","/debate-rebuttal-practice"),("Evidence finder","/debate-evidence-finder"),("Pricing","/debateowl-pricing"),("Open app","/app")] SOFTWARE_ID = BASE + "/#software" ORGANIZATION_REF = {"@type": "Organization", "@id": BASE + "/#organization", "name": ORGANIZATION, "url": BASE + "/", "logo": BASE + "/icon-1024.png", "sameAs": SITE["organizationSameAs"]} @@ -371,10 +371,10 @@ def render_block(block, spans_of=lambda: None): def about(slug): """The About aside. The full definition and plan facts stay on the pricing page (and on / and llms.txt); every other guide gets one line, so the same paragraph is not repeated across the site.""" - if slug == "debatelab-pricing": + if slug == "debateowl-pricing": body = f'

{esc(DEFINITION)} The app is available in English, Spanish and Hungarian.

{esc(PLAN_FACTS)}

' else: - body = f'

{PRODUCT} is an AI debate prep and practice app. See how it works or pricing.

' + body = f'

{PRODUCT} is an AI debate prep and practice app. See how it works or pricing.

' return f'' def structured_data(page, question, answer, faqs, published, modified): @@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ def spans_of(): {about(page["slug"])}
- + ''' @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ def llms_txt(): ## Main pages - [Home]({BASE}/): what {PRODUCT} is, the {len(PREP_MODES)} prep modes, pricing and FAQ -- [Pricing]({page_url("debatelab-pricing")}): trial, Pro and what each includes +- [Pricing]({page_url("debateowl-pricing")}): trial, Pro and what each includes - [Best AI debate tools]({page_url("best-ai-debate-tools")}): how to choose an AI debate tool - [Sitemap]({BASE}/sitemap.xml): every public page diff --git a/scripts/gsc_submit.py b/scripts/gsc_submit.py index d15bb4c3..b86c7a8d 100644 --- a/scripts/gsc_submit.py +++ b/scripts/gsc_submit.py @@ -9,36 +9,33 @@ TOKEN = Path('/home/codex/.hermes/gsc_token.json') SITE_CANDIDATES = [ - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/', - 'sc-domain:pi-stack.org', + 'https://debateowl.com/', + 'sc-domain:debateowl.com', ] -SITEMAP = 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/sitemap.xml' +SITEMAP = 'https://debateowl.com/sitemap.xml' URLS = [ - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/ai-debate-practice', - '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', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/argument-flowchart', - '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/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/debate-clash-points', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-speech-structure', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/about-debatelab', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab-by-programcode', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/what-is-debatelab', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab-app', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debatelab-ai', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/debate-lab', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/terms', - 'https://debate.pi-stack.org/privacy', + 'https://debateowl.com/', + 'https://debateowl.com/ai-debate-practice', + 'https://debateowl.com/ai-debate-case-generator', + 'https://debateowl.com/debate-rebuttal-practice', + 'https://debateowl.com/ai-debate-coach', + 'https://debateowl.com/debate-evidence-finder', + 'https://debateowl.com/argument-flowchart', + 'https://debateowl.com/online-debate-timer', + 'https://debateowl.com/how-to-write-a-debate-case', + 'https://debateowl.com/how-to-practice-rebuttals', + 'https://debateowl.com/how-to-weigh-in-debate', + 'https://debateowl.com/best-ai-debate-tools', + 'https://debateowl.com/world-schools-debate', + 'https://debateowl.com/debate-clash-points', + 'https://debateowl.com/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament', + 'https://debateowl.com/debate-speech-structure', + 'https://debateowl.com/debateowl-pricing', + 'https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-chatgpt', + 'https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-debateclub', + 'https://debateowl.com/debateowl-vs-windebate', + 'https://debateowl.com/terms', + 'https://debateowl.com/privacy', ] def load_creds(): @@ -67,7 +64,7 @@ def main(): # Try any property that can cover target. for s in sites: su=s.get('siteUrl','') - if 'pi-stack.org' in su or 'debate.pi-stack.org' in su: + if 'debateowl.com' in su: site_url=su break if not site_url: diff --git a/scripts/seo_answers.py b/scripts/seo_answers.py index 407a3c05..9c8ea88d 100644 --- a/scripts/seo_answers.py +++ b/scripts/seo_answers.py @@ -12,19 +12,19 @@ "Which AI debate tool should you use?", "It depends on the job. For brainstorming or learning a topic, a general chatbot such as ChatGPT is flexible. For motion-by-motion prep plus timed practice rounds that end in a verdict, a dedicated platform such as {product} fits. As of October 2026, debatelab.ai, a separate product, says it is free and runs World Schools and Asian Parliamentary practice, and WinDebate adds round replay and progress tracking from $19.99/month. Give each tool the same motion and tasks before you decide.", ), - "debatelab-pricing": ( + "debateowl-pricing": ( "How much does {product} cost?", "As of October 2026, {product} has a 3-day free trial with no credit card required, then Pro costs {pro_price}. There is no permanent free plan. Whether Pro is worth it depends on how often you prepare: if you debate every week or have a tournament coming, it covers heavy prep weeks with higher daily limits and all 10 models. If you need help only occasionally and want to stay free, a general chatbot's free tier or a free practice tool will suit you better.", ), - "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": ( + "debateowl-vs-chatgpt": ( "Which is better for debate prep, {product} or ChatGPT?", "It depends on the task. ChatGPT is better for learning a new topic, open brainstorming and general writing help, and it works for any subject. {product} is better when you are preparing a specific motion: it keeps your cases, sources and practice rounds together, predicts the opposing case, times your speeches and gives a verdict on practice rounds. Many debaters use both, ChatGPT for background and {product} for motion prep and practice. Neither replaces checking original sources.", ), - "debatelab-vs-windebate": ( + "debateowl-vs-windebate": ( "Which is better, {product} or WinDebate?", "It depends on your format, budget and how you practise. As of October 2026, WinDebate names six formats including Congressional, Policy and British Parliamentary, has a free tier with monthly limits, and adds live-round capture, replay review and progress tracking, with paid plans from $19.99/month. {product} costs {pro_price} after a 3-day trial, runs full practice rounds against an AI opponent in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, and works in English, Spanish and Hungarian. Choose WinDebate for Policy, Congress or season tracking, and {product} for low-cost case building and sparring.", ), - "debatelab-vs-debateclub": ( + "debateowl-vs-debateclub": ( "Which is better, {product} or DebateClub?", "They solve different problems. As of October 2026, DebateClub is voice-only sparring for high-stakes conversations such as negotiations, pitches and meetings, with opponent personas and rhetorical technique scoring, and Pro costs $19/month. It names no competitive debate formats. {product} is built for school and competitive debate: cases, rebuttals, evidence, a timer and timed rounds in School 4-6-6-3, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum, at {pro_price} after a 3-day trial. Choose DebateClub for workplace persuasion practice and {product} for tournament prep.", ), diff --git a/scripts/seo_guides.py b/scripts/seo_guides.py index f1584e97..fb7fe594 100644 --- a/scripts/seo_guides.py +++ b/scripts/seo_guides.py @@ -808,7 +808,7 @@ ("How do I prepare for a lay judge in PF?", "Run fewer arguments, explain each one plainly, signpost clearly, speak at a normal pace and end every speech with a simple reason to vote for you."), ], }, - "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": { + "debateowl-vs-chatgpt": { "software": True, "modified": "2026-10-21", "features": [ @@ -1254,7 +1254,7 @@ ("Is a card better than an analytical argument?", "Only if it is accurate and relevant. A strong warrant without a card often beats a weak card that does not survive a question."), ], }, - "debatelab-pricing": { + "debateowl-pricing": { "modified": "2026-10-23", "software": True, "lead": "A 3-day free trial with no credit card, then one paid plan. Prices on this page were checked in October 2026.", @@ -1297,7 +1297,7 @@ ("Can I cancel my subscription?", "Yes, any time from the Settings page. You keep access until the end of your billing period."), ], }, - "debatelab-vs-windebate": { + "debateowl-vs-windebate": { "modified": "2026-10-23", "software": True, "features": [ @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ ("Can I use both?", "Yes. They are separate products, and some debaters use one for prep and another for review."), ], }, - "debatelab-vs-debateclub": { + "debateowl-vs-debateclub": { "modified": "2026-10-23", "software": True, "features": [ diff --git a/scripts/seo_hour_watch.py b/scripts/seo_hour_watch.py index 9e2bb0b3..9d06fa79 100644 --- a/scripts/seo_hour_watch.py +++ b/scripts/seo_hour_watch.py @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ "https://debateowl.com/", "https://debateowl.com/terms", "https://debateowl.com/ai-debate-practice", - "https://debateowl.com/debatelab-pricing", + "https://debateowl.com/debateowl-pricing", "https://debateowl.com/llms.txt", "https://debateowl.com/sitemap.xml", ] diff --git a/src/components/landing/Footer.tsx b/src/components/landing/Footer.tsx index f3b95ad1..2bbf0b6d 100644 --- a/src/components/landing/Footer.tsx +++ b/src/components/landing/Footer.tsx @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ const Footer = () => { {t('tools:footer.freeTools')} {/* Static guide pages, not app routes: plain links load them from the server. */} - + {t('footer.pricingGuide')} diff --git a/src/components/landing/GuideHub.tsx b/src/components/landing/GuideHub.tsx index 4e8f71b1..5fbc3916 100644 --- a/src/components/landing/GuideHub.tsx +++ b/src/components/landing/GuideHub.tsx @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ const GROUPS = [ { id: "formats", paths: ["/public-forum-debate", "/lincoln-douglas-debate", "/policy-debate", "/british-parliamentary-debate", "/world-schools-debate", "/congress-debate"] }, { id: "skills", paths: ["/how-to-write-a-debate-case", "/how-to-practice-rebuttals", "/debate-clash-points", "/debate-fallacies", "/debate-judge-adaptation", "/how-to-prepare-for-a-debate-tournament"] }, { id: "tools", paths: ["/tools", "/tools/debate-timer", "/tools/debate-motion-generator", "/tools/debate-flow-sheet", "/tools/speech-time-calculator"] }, - { id: "compare", paths: ["/best-ai-debate-tools", "/debatelab-vs-chatgpt"] }, + { id: "compare", paths: ["/best-ai-debate-tools", "/debateowl-vs-chatgpt"] }, ] as const; const TOOLS = GROUPS.find((group) => group.id === "tools")!; diff --git a/src/locales/en.json b/src/locales/en.json index 0aa2e24d..5c47e6bb 100644 --- a/src/locales/en.json +++ b/src/locales/en.json @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ "tools/debate-flow-sheet": "Debate flow sheet", "tools/speech-time-calculator": "Speech time calculator", "best-ai-debate-tools": "Best AI debate tools compared", - "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} vs ChatGPT" + "debateowl-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} vs ChatGPT" } }, "finalCta": { diff --git a/src/locales/es.json b/src/locales/es.json index 26d7af71..cc71d4e7 100644 --- a/src/locales/es.json +++ b/src/locales/es.json @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ "tools/debate-flow-sheet": "Hoja de flujo", "tools/speech-time-calculator": "Calculadora de tiempo de discurso", "best-ai-debate-tools": "Las mejores herramientas de IA para debate", - "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} frente a ChatGPT" + "debateowl-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} frente a ChatGPT" } }, "finalCta": { diff --git a/src/locales/hu.json b/src/locales/hu.json index a31098ee..eaed2697 100644 --- a/src/locales/hu.json +++ b/src/locales/hu.json @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ "tools/debate-flow-sheet": "Jegyzetlap", "tools/speech-time-calculator": "Beszédidő-kalkulátor", "best-ai-debate-tools": "A legjobb MI-alapú vitaeszközök", - "debatelab-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} vagy ChatGPT" + "debateowl-vs-chatgpt": "{{product}} vagy ChatGPT" } }, "finalCta": { diff --git a/src/test/seo/guide-content.test.ts b/src/test/seo/guide-content.test.ts index 21c200cc..07e809f3 100644 --- a/src/test/seo/guide-content.test.ts +++ b/src/test/seo/guide-content.test.ts @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ const guides = readdirSync(PUBLIC, { withFileTypes: true }) // Pages whose length is set by facts we can state, not by copy we can add: padding a // competitor comparison or the pricing page would mean inventing claims. -const SHORT_BY_DESIGN = new Set(["debatelab-pricing", "debatelab-vs-debateclub", "debatelab-vs-windebate"]); +const SHORT_BY_DESIGN = new Set(["debateowl-pricing", "debateowl-vs-debateclub", "debateowl-vs-windebate"]); const MIN_WORDS = 700; const SHARED_SENTENCE_LENGTH = 60; const MAX_PAGES_PER_SENTENCE = 3; diff --git a/src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts b/src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts index c4528e3d..659f04a1 100644 --- a/src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts +++ b/src/test/vercel-deployment-config.test.ts @@ -124,6 +124,32 @@ describe("Vercel frontend deployment configuration", () => { }))); }); + it("301s the renamed /debatelab-* pages to /debateowl-*, with or without a locale prefix or trailing slash", () => { + const rule = (loadConfig().redirects ?? []).find((entry) => entry.source.startsWith("/:locale(")); + expect(rule).toEqual({ + source: "/:locale(hu|es)?/debatelab-:slug(pricing|vs-chatgpt|vs-debateclub|vs-windebate){/}?", + destination: "/debateowl-:slug", + statusCode: 301, + }); + // What path-to-regexp (via @vercel/routing-utils sourceToRegex) compiles that source to. + const pattern = /^(?:\/(hu|es))?\/debatelab-(pricing|vs-chatgpt|vs-debateclub|vs-windebate)(?:\/)?$/; + const target = (path: string) => { + const match = pattern.exec(path); + return match ? rule!.destination.replace(":slug", match[2]) : undefined; + }; + for (const slug of ["pricing", "vs-chatgpt", "vs-debateclub", "vs-windebate"]) { + for (const prefix of ["", "/hu", "/es"]) { + for (const suffix of ["", "/"]) expect(target(`${prefix}/debatelab-${slug}${suffix}`)).toBe(`/debateowl-${slug}`); + } + // One hop to a generated page; nothing is left at the old address. + expect(existsSync(resolve(process.cwd(), "public", `debateowl-${slug}`, "index.html"))).toBe(true); + expect(existsSync(resolve(process.cwd(), "public", `debatelab-${slug}`))).toBe(false); + } + for (const path of ["/debatelab", "/debatelab-alternatives", "/fr/debatelab-pricing", "/debatelab-pricingx", "/debateowl-pricing"]) { + expect(target(path), path).toBeUndefined(); + } + }); + it("sends only the homepage's ?lang=hu|es links to /hu and /es, so they stop competing with them", () => { // Where Vercel sends a path and query: the first redirect whose source is the // exact path and whose query conditions match whole values, with each named @@ -178,7 +204,7 @@ describe("Vercel frontend deployment configuration", () => { "/ai-vs-traditional-debate-prep": "/ai-debate-practice", }; const guideRedirects = (loadConfig().redirects ?? []) - .filter((rule) => !rule.source.startsWith("/:page(") && !rule.has); + .filter((rule) => !rule.source.startsWith("/:page(") && !rule.source.startsWith("/:locale(") && !rule.has); const retired = new Set(Object.keys(retiredGuides)); const pages = readdirSync(resolve(process.cwd(), "public"), { withFileTypes: true }) .filter((entry) => entry.isDirectory() && existsSync(resolve(process.cwd(), "public", entry.name, "index.html"))) diff --git a/vercel.json b/vercel.json index 0241eac2..5a18efac 100644 --- a/vercel.json +++ b/vercel.json @@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ "destination": "https://debateowl.com/:path", "statusCode": 301 }, + { + "source": "/:locale(hu|es)?/debatelab-:slug(pricing|vs-chatgpt|vs-debateclub|vs-windebate){/}?", + "destination": "/debateowl-:slug", + "statusCode": 301 + }, { "source": "/:page(debatelab|debate-lab|debatelab-ai|debatelab-app|what-is-debatelab|debatelab-by-programcode|about-debatelab)", "destination": "/",