Strategy & closing · Beginner · About 4 min
Find the main disagreement
Find the disagreement your next speech must address
Both sides · 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 round packet: 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.
Clash is where one argument meets another. The most useful issue is often the one that separates the strongest surviving cases, not the easiest point you could win.
Ask which disagreement would most change the comparison if resolved differently. It could concern a factual link, an interpretation, a priority or the consequences of the proposal. Adjust as the round develops.
The affirmative accepts the cost but defends the benefit’s weight.
The negative accepts the time gain but contests the comparison and reach.
Do the recurring worker benefits justify the measured cost and the wider risk?
Keep the surviving reasons
Identify what still supports each side after the responses.
Find their conflict
Name the premise, consequence or priority they contest.
Choose the next task
Decide what your next speech needs to establish on that issue.
The cost exists; its weight is disputed
Resolution A four-day, 32-hour standard work week should replace the current five-day, 40-hour model
Fictional round packet: 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.
- Affirmative reason
Eight hours of time at unchanged weekly pay, stable output and lower absence justify replacement.
The affirmative accepts the cost but defends the benefit’s weight.
- Negative reason
The recurring payroll cost and risk beyond selected workplaces make a general replacement unattractive.
The negative accepts the time gain but contests the comparison and reach.
- Central clash
Do the recurring worker benefits justify the measured cost and the wider risk?
Repeating that either a benefit or a cost exists will not settle this disagreement.
Locate the dispute that remains after both sides’ answers.
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 round packet: 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 turn
Both sides · RebuttalIdentify the main clash between retained-worker gains and displacement losses. State what the affirmative and negative each need to develop next.
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
The disagreement is… Affirmative needs… Negative needs…
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
Identify the main clash between retained-worker gains and displacement losses. State what the affirmative and negative each need to develop next.
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
The disagreement is how widespread recurring gains compare with severe losses concentrated on displaced workers. The affirmative needs to explain why higher real pay and less working time for 300 deserve greater weight. The negative needs to explain why the depth and duration of lost work can outweigh those gains, and both must defend how this limited review informs the broader forecast.
This captures the scale and repetition of its benefit.
This captures the competing concern about severity and distribution.
Both sides need an argument about extending the observed pattern.
The response connects the strongest reasons and gives each side an actual next task. It does not reduce the debate to one missing measurement or a count of beneficiaries.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsI connect the strongest surviving reasons.
- RefutationI name a consequential disagreement.
- OrganizationI identify what each side needs to establish next.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Choosing an easy but inconsequential point.
- Summarizing two cases without explaining where they conflict.
Loading your progress…