In British Parliamentary debate, you get 15 minutes of prep time. In some formats, it's less. Either way, it's not a lot of time, and most debaters waste at least half of it.
Here's what I've seen debaters do in prep: they read the motion, panic, brainstorm five to seven arguments, write down whichever ones they thought of first, and then walk into the round hoping for the best. If this sounds familiar, it's because almost everyone does this, and almost everyone leaves arguments on the table that they should have found.
This is a method that actually works under time pressure. I use it, the debaters I coach use it, and it consistently produces better cases than the brainstorm-and-hope approach.
Minutes 0-2: Understand the motion
Don't start generating arguments yet. First, understand what you're being asked to debate.
Read the motion twice. On the second read, ask yourself:
What's the mechanism? If it's a policy motion ("THW ban X"), what exactly does the ban look like? Who enforces it? What changes? If it's a values motion ("THS X"), what belief or norm is being debated?
What's the status quo? What's happening right now without this policy or shift? This is your counterfactual, and it's the most underused tool in debate prep. The quality of your case depends on how well you understand what you're comparing your proposal against.
Who are the actors? Who does this affect? Who implements it? Who resists it? List the stakeholders. The obvious ones will give you your first arguments. The less obvious ones might give you your best ones.
This step takes two minutes. Debaters who skip it spend the next thirteen minutes building arguments on a shaky foundation.
Minutes 2-7: Generate arguments
Now brainstorm — but with structure.
For each argument you generate, force yourself to articulate three things:
- What's the claim?
- What's the mechanism — how does this actually happen?
- What's the impact — why does this matter?
If you can't articulate a mechanism, the argument isn't ready. Write it in the margins as a backup and move on.
Here's how to generate arguments systematically instead of just hoping they appear:
Think about different stakeholders. For "THW legalize assisted dying": the patient, the family, the doctor, the hospital, the insurance system, disabled communities, religious institutions, elderly people who feel like a burden. Each stakeholder is a potential argument.
Think about different types of harm. Physical, economic, psychological, social, institutional. For the same motion: physical suffering (patient), economic cost of prolonged care (system), psychological burden of watching someone suffer (family), social norm changes around the value of life (society).
Think about the time dimension. What happens immediately? In a year? In a generation? Short-term effects and long-term effects are often different arguments with different impacts.
Think about the counterfactual. What happens if we don't do this? If the status quo is already terrible, that strengthens your case. If the status quo is mostly fine, you need to explain why change is worth the disruption.
Aim for four to five arguments in these five minutes. You won't use all of them. That's fine — having too many is better than having too few.
Minutes 7-10: Prioritize and cut
You have four to five arguments. You're going to use two or three. Here's how to decide which ones:
Which argument is hardest for the other side to answer? This is your best argument. It's not necessarily the one you feel most passionate about — it's the one that creates the most trouble for the opposition.
Which arguments are independent? If two of your arguments rely on the same mechanism, they'll fall together if the opposition attacks that mechanism. Pick arguments that have different logical foundations so the opposition has to attack each one separately.
Which arguments are easy to weigh? An argument with a clear, quantifiable impact is easier to weigh than an abstract philosophical one. In a 7-minute speech, you need arguments that the judge can immediately see the significance of.
Cut the weakest arguments. I know it's painful — you spent time on them. But two deep arguments will always beat four shallow ones. Depth beats breadth.
Minutes 10-13: Build the case
Now write your speech structure. For a 7-minute constructive speech, a typical case has:
Setup (30-60 seconds): Frame the debate. What is this round really about? What's the most important question the judge needs to answer? This is your framing, and it sets the terms for everything that follows.
Argument 1 (2-2.5 minutes): Your strongest argument. Full claim, mechanism, impact. Include an example if you have one.
Argument 2 (2-2.5 minutes): Your second argument. Different mechanism, different stakeholder if possible.
Brief pre-emption (30-60 seconds): What's the most obvious argument the other side will make? Briefly explain why it doesn't hold or why your arguments outweigh it even if it's true.
Don't write your speech word for word. Write bullet points: the claim, the key link in the mechanism, the impact, and the example. If you script it, you'll sound scripted, and you won't be able to adapt when the other team says something unexpected.
Minutes 13-15: Prep for the other side
This is the step that separates good debaters from everyone else. In the last two minutes, stop thinking about your own case and think about theirs.
What will they argue? Write down their two most likely arguments.
What's the best response to each? Even if you only write two sentences per argument, having a prepared response means you won't freeze in the round.
Where will the clash be? If you can predict where the round is going to be fought, you can prepare your weighing in advance. "The round will probably come down to economic impact versus human rights. Here's why human rights outweigh..."
Common prep mistakes
Prepping alone when you have a partner. If you're in BP, you have a partner. Split the work: one person generates arguments, the other maps stakeholders and thinks about the opposition's case. Then combine. Two brains in 15 minutes is worth more than one brain for 30.
Spending 12 minutes on arguments and 3 minutes on everything else. Your arguments are only as good as your ability to prioritize, structure, and weigh them. Allocate your time deliberately.
Ignoring motions you don't like. Some motions are boring. Some motions are on topics you know nothing about. Prep them anyway, using the stakeholder and mechanism methods above. The method works even when your instinct doesn't.
Practice this method
Pick a motion from the Practice Motions page — there are 265 of them across every topic and difficulty level. Set a 15-minute timer. Follow this method. Do it three times a week and within a month your prep will be unrecognizable.
The daily motion tool gives you a random motion with a built-in timer if you want to make it a habit.
— Matt