Debate basics · Beginner · About 3 min
Make a clear claim
Say what you want the audience to believe
Affirmative · Constructive speechRead 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.
A claim is the point you want the audience to accept. “Working hours” is a topic. “A 32-hour week gives workers real time back without hurting output” is a claim. It tells the audience what to believe and gives your evidence a job to do.
Your case will usually have a few claims that together support the resolution. Each one should be clear enough that the other side can attack it. If nobody could disagree with it, it is not doing any work for you.
Work schedules and employee wellbeing.
This names a topic. The audience still doesn’t know what you want them to believe.
A shorter standard can give workers eight hours back each week without necessarily sacrificing output.
Now there’s a claim: a specific benefit, under conditions the evidence supports.
The shorter-week sites maintained the same output index as the comparison group.
The evidence shows the change worked in these workplaces. Don’t stretch it to every industry.
That makes a time benefit worth considering in the choice of standard, even though payroll costs still enter the comparison.
A strong affirmative reason can stand even though the negative has a real cost to point to.
Take a position
Say what is true or what should happen, not just what you are talking about.
Make it something they can attack
A claim the other side can push on is a claim worth defending.
Tie it to the resolution
Say how winning this point helps your side win the debate.
Turn the result into a reason
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.
- Subject
Work schedules and employee wellbeing.
This names a topic. The audience still doesn’t know what you want them to believe.
- Affirmative · Claim
A shorter standard can give workers eight hours back each week without necessarily sacrificing output.
Now there’s a claim: a specific benefit, under conditions the evidence supports.
- Affirmative · Support
The shorter-week sites maintained the same output index as the comparison group.
The evidence shows the change worked in these workplaces. Don’t stretch it to every industry.
- Affirmative · Case connection
That makes a time benefit worth considering in the choice of standard, even though payroll costs still enter the comparison.
A strong affirmative reason can stand even though the negative has a real cost to point to.
Tell the audience exactly what your evidence proves.
Test the reasoning
Read the practice case
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.
Your turn
Affirmative · Constructive speechWrite one affirmative claim using the retained workers’ pay and time gains. Connect it to the overall resolution.
Read 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.
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 review supports… This matters because… My wider case must also account for…
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 case
Write one affirmative claim using the retained workers’ pay and time gains. Connect it to the overall resolution.
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
AI adoption can create gains that reach workers through higher real pay and less time at work. The review records both for 300 retained workers, giving the affirmative a reason to expect benefits beyond company output. Our overall case must weigh those recurring gains against the displaced workers’ losses and defend why this pattern is likely to extend.
The claim names worker outcomes rather than only company output.
The reason names who benefited and how it was measured.
The wider argument still needs a comparison with serious losses.
The response makes a real affirmative argument, backs it with the right outcomes and names the comparison still to win.
Review the performance
- ArgumentsI make an identifiable claim.
- EvidenceI connect a relevant observation to that claim.
- ClarityI distinguish this supporting reason from the entire resolution.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Naming a topic without taking a position on it.
- Making one claim carry your entire case.
Loading your progress…