Debate basics · Beginner · About 5 min
Listen and take useful notes
Flow the debate
Negative · Before the roundRead 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.
Debaters take notes in a format called a flow. Each argument gets its own line, and you follow it across the speeches: the claim, the attack on it, the response to the attack. One look tells you what has been answered and what has been dropped.
Write short labels you can act on, not a transcript. Keep the qualifiers that change the meaning, like “some” or “in retail”. The point of the flow is knowing what your next speech has to do.
Follow one argument through the debate
Flow it short: “New roles → transition benefit.”
Write the attack right next to the claim it answers: “Access limited: 18/60.”
Flag it: this is a new benefit, not a repair of the transition argument.
Your next speech has to weigh the two. Repeating 18/60 again won’t do it.
Label the argument
Use a short tag like “worker time” or “payroll cost”.
Line up the responses
Write each attack and answer next to the argument it hits.
Mark your job
Note whether you need to defend it, press it, weigh it or let it go.
One line of a simple flow
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 claim
New technical roles help answer displacement.
Flow it short: “New roles → transition benefit.”
- Negative challenge
Only 18 of 60 displaced workers reached those roles.
Write the attack right next to the claim it answers: “Access limited: 18/60.”
- Affirmative reply
Transition is incomplete, but retained workers also gained time and pay.
Flag it: this is a new benefit, not a repair of the transition argument.
- Next negative task
Compare the severity of displacement with the retained workers’ gains.
Your next speech has to weigh the two. Repeating 18/60 again won’t do it.
A good flow tells you what your next speech has to do.
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
Negative · Before the roundMake three flow notes: original reason, challenge and reply. Add the task your next speech needs to do.
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
Practice round: affirmative says output held at unchanged weekly pay.
- Negative points to an 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution.
- Affirmative accepts it but argues that eight hours of time and lower absence justify the cost.
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
Reason: … Challenge: … Reply: … Next task: …
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
Make three flow notes: original reason, challenge and reply. Add the task your next speech needs to do.
Practice round: affirmative says output held at unchanged weekly pay.
- Negative points to an 8% payroll increase in retail and distribution.
- Affirmative accepts it but argues that eight hours of time and lower absence justify the cost.
Your response
You can return to the practice whenever you want.
One model response
Reason: time gain at stable output and weekly pay. Challenge: retail/distribution payroll +8%. Reply: affirmative accepts the cost and prioritizes time plus lower absence. Next task: compare the value of those recurring gains with the size and distribution of the cost; do not spend the speech proving a cost they already accepted.
A short note locates the cost argument.
The remaining disagreement concerns weight, not whether the cost exists.
This gives your rebuttal an actual task.
The notes track the argument across turns and identify a strategic next task. They distinguish a concession of a fact from agreement about its significance.
Review the performance
- OrganizationI preserve the actual argument and important qualifications.
- RefutationI connect the challenge and reply to the same issue.
- ClarityMy notes identify the next useful action.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Writing so much you stop thinking about your response.
- Treating a brand new argument as if it answered the old attack.
Loading your progress…