The Preparation Matrix

Start with the format. A tournament round may have fixed speaking times and published judging criteria. A public forum may ask you to explain a policy to people without specialist knowledge. A workplace discussion may focus on cost, feasibility, and who will carry out the decision. In a personal disagreement, preserving trust may matter as much as reaching a decision.

The strategy that wins in competitive debate will fail at a dinner table. The approach that works in a boardroom may backfire at a town hall. Know your venue before you prepare your arguments.

Identify who will make the decision. It might be a judge, an audience, a panel, or the person you are speaking with. Learn what the format asks them to assess. If judging criteria are public, use them. If they are not, make your reasoning clear enough for someone unfamiliar with the topic to follow.

Choose the level of detail your audience needs without changing the substance of your claim. Define specialist terms when necessary, and explain how the evidence bears on the decision. (See Chapter 1: What Winning Means for more on identifying the outcome you are trying to achieve.)

Check the time limits, speaking order, evidence rules, and scope of the resolution. Ask how questions and interruptions work. Then identify the decision criteria: what must each side establish, and how will competing claims be compared?

List your strongest arguments, ranked by strength. For each argument, identify the precise claim you're making, the evidence that supports it, the warrant explaining why the evidence supports the claim, and the impact showing why it matters. (This is the argument structure from Chapter 3: Argument Architecture.)

This is a starting point. The other three boxes show where your case may need evidence, qualification, or a different approach.

Now argue the other side. What would you say if you were them? Think through the strongest versions of their arguments. What evidence would they cite? What values or concerns motivate their position? What would make their case most compelling?

State their position in terms they would recognize. If you cannot, ask what you may have missed before preparing a response.

For each argument in Box 2, prepare a response. You have five options: deny it outright if you have counter-evidence; mitigate it by reducing the magnitude; turn it to show it actually supports your side; outweigh it by showing your arguments matter more; or indict it by attacking the evidence or reasoning. (See Chapter 8: Challenge an Argument for detailed attack strategies.)

For each of your arguments in Box 1, predict how they will attack it. What will they say is wrong with it? How will you defend against that attack? Do you need to preempt the attack in your initial presentation? And critically—is the argument worth making if it invites a strong response? Some arguments look persuasive until you think through Box 4.

It keeps your response focused on a real disagreement. It also lets the audience see that you understand the costs or values on the other side. A fair summary can reveal a limit in your own case that is worth addressing before the round.

For any opposing argument, follow this process. First, state their position in neutral or favorable language—no loaded terms, no dismissive framing. Second, add the strongest evidence they might cite. Third, articulate the best warrant for their claim. Fourth, present the most compelling impact. Check that someone on the other side would recognize this account, then explain where you disagree.

For each piece of evidence you plan to use, verify five things. First, source credibility—who produced it, and how was it checked? Second, recency—is this still current, or has newer evidence emerged? Third, relevance—does it address the people, place, and outcome in your claim? Fourth, interpretation—what does the source actually establish? Fifth, limitations—what questions might a careful opponent raise? (Use the evidence checks in Chapter 11 to evaluate source quality.)

For every piece of evidence, have a ready answer to “So what?” Evidence alone doesn't win debates. You need to connect each piece of evidence to your claim (the warrant) and explain why it matters (the impact). Practice saying “This matters because...” after every statistic or example. If you can't complete that sentence compellingly, the evidence isn't ready.

A concrete example can show what an abstract principle means in practice. Choose one that is representative of your claim, identify its source, and explain what it illustrates. Do not present an unusual case as if it were typical. (See Chapter 14: Pathos & Emotion for more on using examples.)

Practice explaining your central claims, their evidence, and why they matter without reading a script. Use brief notes as prompts. That makes it easier to listen and adjust when the other side raises something you did not expect.

Practice your opening aloud. Then ask a partner to interrupt with a hard question or a strong objection. Pause, restate the point, and answer it. Rehearsing the response helps you find unclear reasoning while there is still time to improve it.

You can also think through how you will recover if you lose your place. A short pause, a glance at your outline, and a clear transition are enough to continue.

Give yourself time to arrive, check the room or connection, and review your notes. Bring water and plan a meal that works for you. If you feel anxious, take a moment to breathe and return to the first point in your outline.

In competitive formats, you often know who you'll face. Use this advantage. Review their past debates if available—on SuperDebate, you can see their debate history and voting patterns. What arguments do they favor? What rhetorical style do they use? Do they tend to attack early or build slowly? What topics do they gravitate toward?

Build an opponent profile. Note their strengths—don't underestimate them. Note their patterns—these become predictable. Note their weaknesses—arguments they struggle to answer, styles that throw them off. Then prepare specifically for this opponent, not just the topic.

Tournaments test endurance. You might face four or five debates in a single day, each on different topics or against different opponents. Preparation must account for this. Don't over-prepare for round one and burn out by round three.

Build a “topic briefcase”—modular argument blocks you can deploy across multiple topics. Arguments about economic impact, individual rights, institutional trust, or democratic process apply to many debates. Prepare these building blocks in advance, then assemble them on the fly for specific motions.

Plan your energy expenditure. Know which rounds are elimination versus preliminary. Some rounds require your A-game; others just need a solid performance. Strategic energy management isn't sandbagging—it's sustainability. (See Chapter 19: Under Pressure for more on tournament endurance.)

Different platforms have different mechanics that affect strategy. On SuperDebate, understand the timing structure, the audience voting mechanics, and the feedback systems. Know how much time you have for each speech. Understand whether you're being judged by a panel, the audience, or both—and what each values.

Test your equipment beforehand and learn where the timer and evidence controls are. A short rehearsal reduces avoidable interruptions during the round.

Every response block follows the same structure. A one-or-two-word descriptive identifier (No Link, We Meet, Non-Unique, Turn). A concise tag line — one sentence stating your argument. Supporting evidence with source, date, and qualifications. And an impact line explaining why this response matters in the context of the debate.

Build blocks for both sides. When you're preparing your case, prepare blocks for likely objections. When you prepare to oppose, build blocks for the cases you are most likely to face. Keep each answer short enough to find and adapt during the round.

After a round, identify the argument you found hardest to answer. Check its evidence, write the fairest version of it, and prepare a response. Over time, this review builds a useful library without turning preparation into memorized replies.

1. 1Research what cases others are running. Read published case lists, watch recorded debates, talk to other debaters.
2. 2Focus depth over breadth. Three well-developed strategies you understand deeply beat twenty shallow ones you can barely explain.
3. 3Do your own research. Reading primary sources gives you nuances that pre-packaged arguments miss — and you'll be able to defend your evidence in cross-examination.
4. 4Practice speaking your blocks aloud. A block that reads well on paper but trips you up verbally is a liability, not an asset.
5. 5Update continuously. Evidence gets stale. Counterarguments evolve. The block you built in September may need revision by December.

After a round, identify one argument you could not answer well. Write down its strongest form, check its evidence, and try a response in practice. Keep the response if it holds up; revise it if a partner finds a gap.

Note the other side's claim, evidence, and reason the evidence matters. Mark the point you need clarified. A clear record helps you respond to the argument they made, rather than the reply you expected to give.

A debater who sounds organized earns credibility before they've made a single substantive point. Compartmentalize your thoughts into individually labeled arguments. Keep your flows labeled and accessible — you should be able to find any argument within three seconds while speaking. Sound organized when you deliver speeches: road-map, signpost, label. The judge who can follow your structure is the judge who votes for you.

There is nothing wrong with reading other people's arguments and pre-packaged case outlines. But the debater who researches their own positions — who reads the primary sources, understands the nuances behind the excerpts, and can explain why their evidence matters — will consistently outperform the one running borrowed arguments they don't fully understand. When you research your own case, you know the evidence inside out. When someone cross-examines you about a source, you can defend it with depth and confidence instead of stumbling.

In team debate, two people must debate better than two other people. That means communicating before and during the debate — agreeing on strategy, dividing argument coverage, signaling when something gets dropped. Make your partner better. Discuss strategy before the round starts so you're not making decisions under time pressure. The teams that communicate win more than the teams with individually talented debaters who don't coordinate.

Tired debaters make mistakes. Unprepared debaters panic. There are no shortcuts and no coaches who can do the work for you. Get enough sleep before competition. Get your other responsibilities handled so debate preparation has your full attention. Practice speaking your arguments out loud — to a partner, a mirror, or an empty room. A block that reads well on paper but trips you up verbally is a liability. The more you practice, the less you sweat, and debaters who don't sweat make better decisions under pressure.