Strategy & closing · Intermediate · About 5 min
Explain why your argument matters more
Tell the audience what should decide the debate
Both sides · RebuttalRead the case: Meritocracy as practiced
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
- Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants.
- Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank.
- In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
A lot of debates turn on what the audience should care about most: fairness, reliable results, people’s wellbeing or something else tied to the resolution. Make that case explicitly. Tell them what should decide the debate and why.
That is your argument, not the official scorecard. At a SuperDebate the audience judges, and the scorecard’s core criteria are arguments, evidence, clarity, and persuasion. The Standard Scorecard also lists refutation, delivery and organization, and events can set their own.
The affirmative argues fairness should decide, and has to show why calling the system meritocratic causes harm.
The negative argues useful assessment should decide, and has to show the reform answers the criticism.
Does the value of reform justify retaining the meritocratic description, or can the affirmative reject that description while preserving useful assessment?
Name what matters
Tie it to the resolution, not a generic slogan.
Give a reason
Explain why that consequence should count most here.
Beat their standard
Show why your standard still holds against the one they are pushing.
Fairness and useful assessment
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
- Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants.
- Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank.
- In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
- Affirmative priority
An institution should not describe background advantage as deserved achievement. That description helps preserve unequal access.
The affirmative argues fairness should decide, and has to show why calling the system meritocratic causes harm.
- Negative priority
A selection system should identify relevant ability. The useful work-sample measure and smaller later gap support improving the practice.
The negative argues useful assessment should decide, and has to show the reform answers the criticism.
- Comparison
Does the value of reform justify retaining the meritocratic description, or can the affirmative reject that description while preserving useful assessment?
Check whether the two standards really conflict before you fight over them.
Argue for your standard inside your case. The audience still scores the debating on the scorecard.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
Resolution Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
a hiring audit compares 100 lower-income and 100 higher-income applicants.
- Their anonymous work-sample scores were similar, but CV review shortlisted 30 lower-income and 60 higher-income applicants.
- Among those hired, work-sample scores tracked six-month job performance more closely than CV rank.
- In a later cohort, free preparation and an anonymous first stage reduced the shortlist-rate gap from 30 to 10 percentage points; other changes were not controlled.
The affirmative argues that calling the existing process meritocratic legitimizes an advantage not explained by demonstrated ability. The negative argues that useful ability assessment and the improvement after reform are reasons to repair the practice rather than reject it. Neither side may treat this single practice audit as a description of all societies.
Your turn
Affirmative · RebuttalDefend the priority of usable time at unchanged pay. Meet the negative’s cost objection and distinguish this argument from an official judging rule.
Read the case: The four-day workweek
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.
- Half were assigned by lottery to 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay; half kept 40 hours.
- Both groups maintained an output index of 100.
- Absence averaged three days per worker in the shorter-week group and five in the comparison group; these counts were not adjusted for scheduled days.
- Customer coverage was maintained, but payroll in the shorter-week retail and distribution sites was 8% higher; office payroll was unchanged.
- Healthcare and other continuous-service industries were not included.
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.
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
Time deserves weight because… Cost still matters when… This is an argument about…
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 A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Read the practice task and case
Defend the priority of usable time at unchanged pay. Meet the negative’s cost objection and distinguish this argument from an official judging rule.
24 volunteer workplaces, covering offices, retail and distribution, joined a six-month comparison.
- Half were assigned by lottery to 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay; half kept 40 hours.
- Both groups maintained an output index of 100.
- Absence averaged three days per worker in the shorter-week group and five in the comparison group; these counts were not adjusted for scheduled days.
- Customer coverage was maintained, but payroll in the shorter-week retail and distribution sites was 8% higher; office payroll was unchanged.
- Healthcare and other continuous-service industries were not included.
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.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
Usable time at unchanged pay deserves weight because workers can use the gain for care, rest or other activities while the trial maintains output. The payroll cost still matters, especially if it reduces income or access to work elsewhere. Our case argues that the recurring benefit justifies the measured cost; it does not declare time the event’s sole judging criterion. The judge can assess how well we support and defend that comparison.
This explains what usable time can mean to workers.
The cost could affect outcomes the affirmative also values.
Your value argument is part of your case. It doesn’t replace the scorecard.
The response connects the priority to the people affected, preserves the rival concern and keeps the argument separate from the official performance instrument.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsI explain why the priority fits the resolution.
- PersuasionI address a serious competing concern.
- RefutationI distinguish my argument from the event’s scoring rules.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Naming a value without defending why it applies.
- Confusing what your side wants weighed with the official scoring criteria.
Loading your progress…