Run your first SuperDebate

Carry the case through an exchange

1. 01

   Prepare both cases

   Know the strongest reason for each side and the commitment your own case makes.

2. 02

   Respond under the clock

   Question, defend, select and compare as the exchange changes.

3. 03

   Review a performance

   Identify one effective move and one improvement tied to the judging criteria.

Eight turns with a developing clash

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.

1. Affirmative · 1 · Constructive · 60 seconds

   Replace the normal 40-hour week with 32 hours at unchanged weekly pay. The comparison maintained output and reduced absence while giving workers eight hours back each week. Those recurring gains justify accepting the measured payroll cost.

   The affirmative develops benefits and a comparison, rather than promising a cost-free change.

2. Negative · 2 · Cross-ex · 30 seconds

   Question: do you accept the 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution? Answer: yes; we argue that the worker benefits justify it.

   The answer settles a fact while leaving its significance in dispute.

3. Negative · 3 · Constructive · 60 seconds

   Stable output is not a free gain when maintaining coverage costs more. The payroll increase recurs, and workplaces outside this selected trial may have tighter margins. The time benefit is valuable, but it does not automatically justify a general replacement.

   The negative distinguishes a recorded cost from a forecast about wider risk.

4. Affirmative · 4 · Cross-ex · 30 seconds

   Question: did the trial measure job losses or lower pay caused by the higher payroll? Answer: no. Our claim is a risk from cost pressure, not a recorded loss of jobs.

   The affirmative limits the negative impact without pretending the cost disappears.

5. Affirmative · 5 · Rebuttal · 60 seconds

   Their wider harm is a forecast; our time and absence benefits were observed. Costs still matter, but a standard should share productive gains as usable time. They need to explain why this measured benefit is outweighed by the risk they predict.

   This compares confidence and value while retaining the affirmative’s own burden to justify replacement.

6. Negative · 6 · Rebuttal · 60 seconds

   Their trial also observed the payroll cost. A general standard reaches workplaces not represented here. The comparison is not certain benefits against imaginary costs: it is recurring time gains against measured costs and an argued risk to access to work.

   The reply answers the confidence comparison and develops its own.

7. Affirmative · 7 · Final rebuttal · 30 seconds

   The strongest objection is cost, not an observed output failure. We defend the recurring value of eight hours at unchanged weekly pay, supported by maintained output and lower absence. That is why our affirmative comparison deserves weight.

   The closing selects the surviving reason and explains its significance.

8. Negative · 8 · Final rebuttal · 30 seconds

   The extra time matters. But the affirmative accepts an ongoing payroll increase and has not shown why the wider cost risk is worth imposing as the standard. Prefer our comparison of the consequences, while judging each speaker’s evidence, responses and delivery on their merits.

   The speech gives a reason for the negative position without making a side vote the entire review.

Use the round to test decisions, then repeat the move that needs work.

Your rehearsal

Run the exchange aloud. Note your argument, the challenge that changed your plan, your reply and one performance improvement.

Try this aloud if you like, then note what you would improve. You can also write the response below.

You can type or use your keyboard’s microphone to dictate. Your text stays editable. Practice is optional.

Review and continue