Strategy & closing · Intermediate · About 5 min
Allocate speaking time
Use your speaking time on the consequential arguments
Affirmative · RebuttalRead the fictional case: The four-day workweek
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional exchange: the affirmative faces an 8% payroll objection and a broader challenge about transfer to other workplaces.
Time allocation is a strategic choice. Give the central threat enough explanation, keep independent reasons visible and leave room to explain why the exchange matters.
A short orientation can help, but a long introduction can consume the response. Decide what to cut before relying on speed. The best allocation changes with the importance and complexity of the actual arguments.
Useful if the negative has developed cost as its strongest threat. Transfer receives only a limited answer.
Useful if the negative has made the general-standard objection central. The cost defense must be more concise.
Use the plan that meets this round’s strongest threat. Cut the repeated trial summary before cutting the reason your comparison works.
Identify the work
List the independent threats and the comparison your speech needs.
Choose what you will leave unanswered
Remove repetition or a lower-value subpoint to protect the important reasoning.
Leave time to explain the overall comparison
Leave enough time to connect the response to the case.
Two plausible plans for 60 seconds
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional exchange: 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.
Useful if the negative has developed cost as its strongest threat. Transfer receives only a limited 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.
Useful if the negative has made the general-standard objection central. The cost defense must be more concise.
- Choice
Use the plan that meets this round’s strongest threat. Cut the repeated trial summary before cutting the reason your comparison works.
There is no universal percentage split for every rebuttal.
Protect the argument’s work, not the outline you prepared before the round.
Test the reasoning
Read the fictional practice case
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional exchange: 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 fictional case: AI and the future of work
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Fictional round packet: 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 fictional case
Plan a 45-second reply to retained-worker gains and a transition defense. Allocate the time and explain one deliberate cut.
Fictional round packet: 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.
The commitment can establish a focused point without repeating the whole exchange.
The comparison receives the main development.
The cut follows strategic value rather than habit.
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 subpoint without developing the central answer.
- Leaving comparison to seconds that never remain.
Loading your progress…