How to win a debate

Judges decide rounds on reasoning they can follow, from your claim to why it matters more than the other side's. The usual advice, be confident and speak loudly, is the debate version of "just be yourself" before a job interview. It helps your delivery, and delivery counts only as far as it helps the judge follow you.

Give every argument a mechanism

Debaters often lose because they make assertions instead of arguments. They have opinions and things they feel strongly about, but no chain of reasoning a judge can follow.

Every argument needs a claim, a mechanism and an impact.

The claim is what you're arguing: "A universal basic income reduces poverty."

The mechanism is how. A guaranteed income covers basic needs, so people aren't forced into exploitative low-wage work just to survive, so they can retrain, look for better work or start something of their own. Without that chain, the claim is an assertion.

The impact is why it matters. Persistent poverty passes from one generation to the next, and individual effort alone rarely breaks the cycle.

On Buildacase this structure is called linear flow, and everything else here builds on it. Most debaters skip the mechanism and jump from "UBI exists" to "poverty is bad." Judges notice. If you can't explain how your policy causes the result you're claiming, you don't have an argument yet.

Answer what they said

Contradiction is saying "that's wrong." Refutation is explaining why it's wrong and what follows for the round.

The strongest refutation goes after the mechanism. If the other team argues that banning social media for minors protects their mental health, ask whether the ban improves anything, or whether the underlying problems (comparison, bullying, isolation) just move to group chats and other apps. If the mechanism fails, the argument goes with it. A reply of "social media isn't that bad" leaves the mechanism standing.

The next strongest goes after the impact. Even if the mechanism holds, is the harm as big as they say? Is there a benefit they've left out?

The weakest, and the most common, is asserting the opposite. "They say X, but actually Y." Unless you explain why Y is true, you've disagreed without refuting anything.

And answer the case they ran. Rebuttal written before the round and delivered no matter what the other side says is easy for a judge to spot. If your response would have been the same whatever they said, it isn't a response.

Tell the judge why you matter more

Both sides will make some good points, and both will leave something unanswered. The judge still has to decide whose arguments matter more. If you don't answer that, the judge answers it alone, and possibly not in your favour.

That's weighing: comparing your arguments with theirs and giving the judge a reason to put yours first. Some common ways to do it:

Scope. Yours affects more people. "Even if their economic argument is true, it's about businesses. Ours is about children's safety, and far more children are affected than businesses."

Severity. Yours is worse, or permanent. "Both sides involve some disruption, but ours can't be undone. Developmental harm to a child is permanent. Their harm is economic and temporary."

Probability. Yours is more likely to happen. "Their argument needs three things to go wrong at once. Ours needs one well-documented pattern to continue."

The words doing the work in each of these are even if. Good weighing grants that the other side has a point and explains why yours matters more anyway. That's comparative refutation.

Mistakes which cost rounds

Too much time on your own case. Six minutes building and one minute answering tells the judge you can't handle their arguments.

New arguments in the last speech. In BP the whip speeches are for summary and weighing. A new argument there gets little or no credit, because the other side can't answer it.

Breadth over depth. Five shallow points lose to two developed ones. If you have to choose between covering everything and developing your best two, develop the two.

No weighing. In close rounds the team which weighs usually wins. If neither team weighs, the judge has to guess.

Where to start

New to competitive debate: start with linear flow. Everything else builds on it.

Know the basics already: the refutation lessons work on the part most people find hardest.

Trying to break: the Advanced track covers framing, extensions, whip speeches and how to approach different kinds of motion.

The lessons are free, and you don't need an account to read them.