Strategy & closing · Intermediate · About 5 min
Allocate speaking time
Spend your time on what decides the round
Affirmative · RebuttalRead the case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Practice round: the affirmative faces an 8% payroll objection and a broader challenge about transfer to other workplaces.
How you split your time is a strategic choice. Give the biggest threat enough time, keep your own independent arguments alive, and leave room to tell the audience why it all matters.
A quick roadmap can help. A long intro eats your answers. Decide what to cut before you start talking faster. The right split depends on what actually came up in this round.
Use this split when cost is the negative’s strongest argument. Transfer gets a short answer.
Use this split when the negative leaned on whether results transfer. Keep the cost answer tight.
Use the plan that meets this round’s strongest threat. Cut the repeated trial summary before cutting the reason your comparison works.
List the jobs
Write down the threats you must answer and the weighing you must do.
Choose what to drop
Cut repetition or a minor point to protect the important answer.
Save time to weigh
Leave enough time to tie your answers back to who should win.
Two plausible plans for 60 seconds
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Practice round: the affirmative faces an 8% payroll objection and a broader challenge about transfer to other workplaces.
- Affirmative · Cost is the central clash
10 seconds on transfer; 35 on why the time benefit justifies the cost; 15 on the final comparison.
Use this split when cost is the negative’s strongest argument. Transfer gets a short answer.
- Affirmative · Transfer is the central clash
25 seconds defending the inference beyond the selected sites; 20 on cost and benefit; 15 on the comparison.
Use this split when the negative leaned on whether results transfer. Keep the cost answer tight.
- Choice
Use the plan that meets this round’s strongest threat. Cut the repeated trial summary before cutting the reason your comparison works.
No fixed split works for every rebuttal. Let the round decide.
Protect the arguments that win, not the outline you wrote before the round.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Practice round: the affirmative faces an 8% payroll objection and a broader challenge about transfer to other workplaces.
Your turn
Negative · RebuttalPlan a 45-second reply to retained-worker gains and a transition defense. Allocate the time and explain one deliberate cut.
Read the case: AI and the future of work
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.
- Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added.
- Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later.
- The other 22 new roles went to different applicants.
- The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy.
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…
Help me get started
0–…: … Next: … Finish: … I cut… because…
Try it aloud
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.
Review and continue
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Read the practice task and case
Plan a 45-second reply to retained-worker gains and a transition defense. Allocate the time and explain one deliberate cut.
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.
- Sixty entry-level roles were removed and 40 technical roles added.
- Of the 60 displaced workers, 18 entered the new roles, 24 found work elsewhere at 8% lower pay, and 18 were still unemployed six months later.
- The other 22 new roles went to different applicants.
- The review does not isolate AI from every other change or forecast the whole economy.
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.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
First 10 seconds: use the 18-of-60 transition answer to establish that new roles do not resolve displacement. Next 25: compare the severity and duration of the losses with retained workers’ pay and time gains. Final 10: explain why that comparison challenges the overall prediction. I cut a repeated list of all employers because it does less work than the impact comparison.
One cross-ex answer makes the point. No need to replay the round.
The comparison receives the main development.
Cut what matters least in this round, not what you usually cut.
The plan gives a useful concession a concise role, devotes most time to the central comparison and protects a conclusion. A different round could justify spending more time on the forecast’s causal support.
Review the performance
- OrganizationMy allocation fits the available clock.
- RefutationI reserve time for the central explanation.
- ClarityMy cut has a reason tied to the case.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Rushing through every point without fully answering the big one.
- Leaving your weighing for the last few seconds.
Loading your progress…