Debate basics · Beginner · About 4 min
A resolution is the statement being debated. The affirmative argues for it and the negative argues against it. Every word in it matters, because the wording decides what each side has to prove. Before you write a single argument, read it slowly.
Ask what the affirmative is committed to and what ground the negative gets. Debaters call that the division of ground. Some resolutions propose a change, some make a prediction, some make a judgment. If a key term could be read two ways, decide which reading you are defending and be ready to explain why it is the fair one.
The resolution
A the current five-day, 40-hour model
Select a highlighted phrase to unpack its meaning.
Both days and hours change. Four ten-hour days would answer a different resolution.
The case concerns replacing the normal model, not simply allowing one company to experiment.
The affirmative supports replacement. The negative can challenge its reasons, consequences or interpretation, or argue for an alternative.
Find the action, the scope and any limits. “Should replace” is a much bigger claim than “should be allowed”.
Say in one sentence what your side has to prove to win, and what it does not have to prove.
Locate the point the other side will actually fight you on. That is where the debate will happen.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
For this practice round, the affirmative defends replacing the normal 40-hour model with a 32-hour standard at unchanged weekly pay; it does not claim every shift must be identical. The negative challenges whether the benefits justify the costs of that replacement.
We defend a 32-hour normal workweek at unchanged weekly pay, with schedules adapted to coverage needs.
The resolution says nothing about pay. The affirmative chooses unchanged pay and now has to defend that choice.
Even if shorter weeks help selected workplaces, replacing the general standard carries costs the case must justify.
The negative doesn’t have to deny every benefit. It only has to show why replacing the standard is the wrong call.
Let one company compress 40 hours into four days.
This proposal leaves the 40 hours and the standard untouched, so it argues a different resolution.
Read the wording closely and you know where the fight is before the round starts.
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
For this practice round, the affirmative defends replacing the normal 40-hour model with a 32-hour standard at unchanged weekly pay; it does not claim every shift must be identical. The negative challenges whether the benefits justify the costs of that replacement.
Explain “on net.” State the affirmative’s claim and a negative challenge that accepts some workers can benefit.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.
Loading your progress…
“On net” means… Affirmative argues… Negative can argue…
Use the timer for a spoken attempt if it helps. Practice without recording, then note what you would improve.
Speaking is self-reviewed. No microphone or recording is required.
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Explain “on net.” State the affirmative’s claim and a negative challenge that accepts some workers can benefit.
a two-year review of 30 employers records 300 retained workers receiving 4% higher inflation-adjusted pay and working 37 rather than 40 hours per week after AI adoption.
The affirmative argues that productive tools can improve pay and time for many workers. The negative argues that concentrated losses and barriers to new work can outweigh those gains.
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
“On net” means comparing the overall benefits and harms. The affirmative argues that workers gain overall, even though some lose. The negative can accept pay and time gains for retained workers while arguing that the severity and duration of displacement make the overall prediction unconvincing.
“On net” calls for a comparison rather than one isolated outcome.
An overall claim does not require every individual to benefit.
The negative has a substantive reason to contest the balance.
The response keeps the overall resolution distinct from a guarantee that no worker loses. It identifies a genuine comparison for both sides to develop.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Loading your progress…
