Delivery · Intermediate · About 5 min
Speak at a clear pace
Use your time without losing the room
Affirmative · Constructive speechRead 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.
How fast you talk is a choice. The right speed depends on your audience, how complicated the point is and how much time you have. Familiar setup can move fast. A new distinction needs room.
Practice out loud. Cut repetition before you speed up through the part people need to hear. Afterward, ask a listener to repeat your argument back, not just whether you sounded smooth.
The CV process favored higher-income applicants despite similar work-sample scores and that matters because calling this meritocracy makes background advantage look deserved although useful assessment can still be preserved.
Too many ideas in one breath. The key distinction gets lost.
The groups had similar work-sample scores. But the CV process shortlisted the higher-income group at twice the rate. Calling that outcome meritocratic can make background advantage look deserved.
Separate sentences give the fact and the reasoning room to land.
We criticize the current process and the story told about it. That does not require rejecting every useful test of ability.
Slow down on the distinction the audience must not miss. Use the playback for rhythm, then practice in your own voice.
Find the hard part
Spot the point people are most likely to miss.
Change speed
Slow down on new reasoning and move through familiar setup.
Check it landed
Ask a listener to repeat your claim and your reason.
The distinction needs space
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.
- Affirmative · Crowded version
The CV process favored higher-income applicants despite similar work-sample scores and that matters because calling this meritocracy makes background advantage look deserved although useful assessment can still be preserved.
Too many ideas in one breath. The key distinction gets lost.
- Affirmative · Clearer version
The groups had similar work-sample scores. But the CV process shortlisted the higher-income group at twice the rate. Calling that outcome meritocratic can make background advantage look deserved.
Separate sentences give the fact and the reasoning room to land.
- Affirmative · Protect the distinction
We criticize the current process and the story told about it. That does not require rejecting every useful test of ability.
Slow down on the distinction the audience must not miss. Use the playback for rhythm, then practice in your own voice.
Your pace works when the audience can follow your reasoning.
Your rehearsal
Negative · RebuttalWrite three connected spoken sentences comparing access and gains. Mark the sentence that needs the most room, then try it aloud.
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.
Try this aloud if you like, then note what you would improve. You can also write the response below.
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.
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
First sentence: … Second: … Third: … Give most room to…
Review and continue
Resolution Advanced AI will on net improve outcomes for workers
Read the practice task and case
Write three connected spoken sentences comparing access and gains. Mark the sentence that needs the most room, then try it aloud.
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
Forty new roles were created. Only 18 of the 60 displaced workers entered them. The retained workers’ pay and time gains remain real, but new-role counts do not resolve the losses to everyone displaced. Give the final sentence most room, because it distinguishes a damaged transition argument from a separate surviving benefit.
The denominator is easy to hear.
The transition challenge does not remove this benefit.
The densest connection deserves more processing time.
The passage keeps the evidence concise and reserves space for the more complex relationship between two arguments. The practice checks understanding rather than a universal speaking speed.
Review the performance
- DeliveryI give the important distinction enough room.
- ClarityMy edit preserves the argument and evidence.
- ArgumentsI try the passage aloud and identify what a listener might miss.
Choose one move to improve, revise your response, then try it aloud.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Only practicing for speed, never for understanding.
- Cutting a key distinction just to fit more words in.
Loading your progress…