Rebuttal · Beginner · About 4 min
Find a missing assumption
Find the step they skipped
Negative · RebuttalRead 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.
Most arguments rely on something the speaker never proved. Ask yourself: what has to be true for their evidence to lead to their conclusion? That hidden step is often the best place to attack.
Pick an assumption that matters. Every argument has assumptions, so pointing one out is not enough. Explain why this one is doubtful and what happens to their argument if it fails.
Forty technical roles were added.
The evidence shows new roles were created.
Those roles answer the problem for displaced workers.
For the claim to work, the people who lost jobs must be able to get those roles. That step is never shown.
Only 18 of the 60 displaced workers entered those roles. Counting new jobs does not establish a successful transition for the others.
The negative uses the evidence to test that exact step.
The affirmative still has retained-worker gains, but cannot treat all displacement as resolved by the new-role count.
The reply narrows the conclusion without denying the new roles exist.
Split the fact from the conclusion
What did they show, and what are they claiming it means?
Find the missing step
What connects their evidence to the benefit or harm they claim?
Show what breaks
Explain what their argument loses if that step does not hold.
New roles and access are different claims
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.
- Affirmative · Support
Forty technical roles were added.
The evidence shows new roles were created.
- Affirmative · Conclusion
Those roles answer the problem for displaced workers.
For the claim to work, the people who lost jobs must be able to get those roles. That step is never shown.
- Negative · Link challenge
Only 18 of the 60 displaced workers entered those roles. Counting new jobs does not establish a successful transition for the others.
The negative uses the evidence to test that exact step.
- Negative · Case effect
The affirmative still has retained-worker gains, but cannot treat all displacement as resolved by the new-role count.
The reply narrows the conclusion without denying the new roles exist.
Attacking a link matters when you show what the argument can no longer prove.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
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.
Your turn
Affirmative · RebuttalThe negative says useful work-sample assessment proves the existing process is meritocratic. Identify the missing link and explain the effect on that defense.
Read 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.
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
The observation is… Their conclusion also needs… Our reply is…
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 Meritocracy as practiced in modern societies is a harmful fiction that should be rejected
Read the practice task and case
The negative says useful work-sample assessment proves the existing process is meritocratic. Identify the missing link and explain the effect on that defense.
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 response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
Work-sample scores tracking later performance shows that one assessment can be useful. It does not establish that the CV-based shortlist rewarded that ability. The negative needs a connection between the useful measure and the actual selection process. Without it, our criticism of background advantage in the existing process survives, even if both sides support better ability assessment.
The affirmative need not deny the value of every ability measure.
A useful measure and its use in the current system are separate matters.
This identifies the affirmative argument the reply preserves.
The response accepts a relevant observation while attacking the inference from a useful tool to a defense of the whole existing practice. It keeps the resolution’s target precise.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsI identify a link the conclusion actually needs.
- RefutationI give a reason to doubt that link.
- EvidenceI explain what remains of both cases.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Pointing out an assumption without saying why it matters.
- Treating damage to one link as if it beat their whole case.
Loading your progress…