Interactive debate and argument practice with structured feedback, counterargument generation, logical fallacy identification, and scoring rubrics. Use when preparing for debates, improving persuasion skills, or practicing argumentation.
Frameworks for structured argumentation, counterargument development, logical analysis, and persuasive communication practice with objective scoring.
ARGUMENT BUILDER (Toulmin Model):
CLAIM: [Your main assertion]
What are you arguing?
GROUNDS: [Evidence and data supporting the claim]
What facts back this up?
WARRANT: [The logical connection between grounds and claim]
Why does this evidence support your claim?
BACKING: [Support for the warrant itself]
Why should we trust this reasoning?
QUALIFIER: [Degree of certainty — most, some, probably]
How strong is this claim?
REBUTTAL: [Conditions where the claim doesn't hold]
When would this argument fail?
EXAMPLE:
Claim: "Remote work increases productivity for knowledge workers."
Grounds: "Stanford study showed 13% productivity increase in remote workers."
Warrant: "Fewer interruptions and commute elimination allow deeper focus."
Backing: "Multiple studies confirm interruptions cost 23 min to recover from."
Qualifier: "For most knowledge workers in roles not requiring physical presence."
Rebuttal: "May not apply to new employees needing mentorship or highly
collaborative creative roles."
| Type | Structure | Best For | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deductive | If premises true → conclusion must be true | Logical proofs, policy arguments | "All citizens must follow laws. X is a citizen. Therefore X must follow laws." |
| Inductive | Specific observations → general conclusion | Scientific arguments, trend analysis | "In 50 studies, X led to Y. Therefore X likely causes Y." |
| Abductive | Best available explanation | Diagnostic arguments | "The best explanation for these symptoms is condition X." |
| Analogical | Similar case → similar conclusion | Precedent-based arguments | "Policy X worked in Country A, which shares characteristics with Country B." |
| Causal | X causes Y | Policy proposals, problem-solution | "Increasing minimum wage will reduce poverty because..." |
COUNTERARGUMENT WORKSHEET:
ORIGINAL ARGUMENT: [State the argument you're opposing]
STRATEGY 1 — CHALLENGE THE EVIDENCE:
"The evidence cited is flawed because..."
- Data is outdated: [Explain]
- Sample size insufficient: [Explain]
- Source is biased: [Explain]
- Correlation ≠ causation: [Explain]
STRATEGY 2 — CHALLENGE THE REASONING:
"Even if the evidence is correct, the conclusion doesn't follow because..."
- Logical gap between evidence and claim: [Explain]
- Alternative explanation for the data: [Explain]
- False dichotomy (there are other options): [Explain]
STRATEGY 3 — CHALLENGE THE SIGNIFICANCE:
"Even if the argument is valid, it doesn't matter because..."
- The impact is overstated: [Explain]
- Other factors are more important: [Explain]
- The cost of the proposal outweighs the benefit: [Explain]
STRATEGY 4 — PROVIDE COUNTEREXAMPLES:
"This argument fails in these real-world cases..."
- Example 1: [Where the argument doesn't hold]
- Example 2: [Where the opposite occurred]
STRONGEST COUNTER: [Select best strategy + compose your response]
STEEL MAN PROCESS:
Before arguing against a position, first construct the STRONGEST
possible version of your opponent's argument:
STEP 1: State their argument in your own words
"[Opponent's position as I understand it]"
STEP 2: Check understanding
"Is this a fair representation of your view?"
STEP 3: Strengthen it (add their best evidence)
"In fact, the strongest version of this argument would include..."
- Best available evidence for their position
- Most charitable interpretation of their claims
- Strongest logical chain supporting their conclusion
STEP 4: NOW respond to the strongest version
"Even in its strongest form, this argument has the following problems..."
WHY STEEL MAN:
- Demonstrates intellectual honesty
- Prevents straw man fallacy
- Your counter is more persuasive when addressing the best version
- Builds credibility with the audience
- Forces you to deeply understand the issue
| Fallacy | Definition | Example | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ad Hominem | Attacking the person, not the argument | "You can't trust their economic analysis, they didn't finish college." | "The argument's validity is independent of who makes it. Let's examine the evidence." |
| Straw Man | Misrepresenting the argument to attack it | "You want to reduce military spending? So you don't care about national security?" | "That's not my position. I said [actual position]." |
| Appeal to Authority | Citing an authority outside their expertise | "A famous actor says vaccines are dangerous." | "What do the relevant experts (epidemiologists) say?" |
| False Dichotomy | Presenting only two options when more exist | "Either we ban all cars or accept pollution." | "There are many intermediate options: electric vehicles, public transit, emissions standards." |
| Slippery Slope | Claiming one event will inevitably lead to extreme outcomes | "If we allow X, next thing you know Y and Z will happen." | "What evidence exists that X actually leads to Y? Each step requires its own justification." |
| Circular Reasoning | Using the conclusion as a premise | "This policy is good because it's the right thing to do." | "You're assuming what you're trying to prove. Why is it the right thing?" |
| Red Herring | Introducing an irrelevant topic | "We should discuss education funding." "But what about the economy?" | "That's a separate issue. Let's stay focused on education funding." |
| Bandwagon | Appealing to popularity | "Everyone believes X, so X must be true." | "Popularity doesn't determine truth. What does the evidence show?" |
| Appeal to Emotion | Using emotion instead of logic | "Think of the children!" (without relevant evidence) | "I share your concern, but let's examine what the data actually shows." |
| Hasty Generalization | Drawing broad conclusions from limited examples | "I know two people who failed, so the program doesn't work." | "Two cases isn't enough to evaluate the program. What do the aggregate results show?" |
LD DEBATE FORMAT (1v1):
AFFIRMATIVE:
Constructive speech: 6 minutes
(Present your case with evidence and reasoning)
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
By Negative: 3 minutes
(Questions to clarify and challenge the Affirmative case)
NEGATIVE:
Constructive speech: 7 minutes
(Present your case + respond to Affirmative arguments)
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
By Affirmative: 3 minutes
AFFIRMATIVE:
Rebuttal: 4 minutes
(Respond to Negative arguments, rebuild your case)
NEGATIVE:
Rebuttal: 6 minutes
(Final arguments, summarize why you win)
AFFIRMATIVE:
Rebuttal: 3 minutes
(Final word — crystallize your best arguments)
POLICY DEBATE (2v2):
CONSTRUCTIVES (build your case):
1AC (First Affirmative Constructive): 8 min
Cross-ex by 2NC: 3 min
1NC (First Negative Constructive): 8 min
Cross-ex by 1AC: 3 min
2AC (Second Affirmative Constructive): 8 min
Cross-ex by 1NC: 3 min
2NC (Second Negative Constructive): 8 min
Cross-ex by 2AC: 3 min
REBUTTALS (summarize and weigh):
1NR (First Negative Rebuttal): 5 min
1AR (First Affirmative Rebuttal): 5 min
2NR (Second Negative Rebuttal): 5 min
2AR (Second Affirmative Rebuttal): 5 min
RAPID-FIRE DEBATE (15 minutes total):
SETUP (2 min):
Topic: [Resolution or question]
Side A: [For / Affirmative]
Side B: [Against / Negative]
ROUND 1 — Opening Statements (4 min):
Side A: 2 minutes — State your position with evidence
Side B: 2 minutes — State your position with evidence
ROUND 2 — Rebuttals (4 min):
Side B: 2 minutes — Respond to Side A's arguments
Side A: 2 minutes — Respond to Side B's arguments
ROUND 3 — Closing Statements (4 min):
Side A: 2 minutes — Summarize your strongest arguments
Side B: 2 minutes — Summarize your strongest arguments
DEBRIEF (1 min):
- Strongest argument from each side
- Key moment that shifted the debate
- Areas for improvement
DEBATE SCORING RUBRIC:
CATEGORY | SCORE (1-10) | NOTES
----------------------------|-------------|------
CONTENT (40%):
Evidence quality | ___/10 |
Argument logic | ___/10 |
Depth of analysis | ___/10 |
Counterargument handling | ___/10 |
DELIVERY (30%):
Clarity of expression | ___/10 |
Organization/structure | ___/10 |
Pacing and time management| ___/10 |
STRATEGY (30%):
Clash (engaging opponent) | ___/10 |
Weighing (why your args matter more) | ___/10 |
Framing (controlling the narrative) | ___/10 |
TOTAL: ___/100
STRENGTHS:
1. [What worked well]
2. [What worked well]
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
1. [Specific improvement with example]
2. [Specific improvement with example]
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE:
- [Specific drill or exercise]
POST-DEBATE SELF-ASSESSMENT:
Did I...
[ ] State my position clearly in the first 30 seconds?
[ ] Support each claim with specific evidence?
[ ] Address my opponent's strongest arguments (not just weak ones)?
[ ] Avoid logical fallacies in my own reasoning?
[ ] Identify fallacies in my opponent's reasoning?
[ ] Manage my time effectively (not rushing or running out)?
[ ] Stay calm and composed under pressure?
[ ] Use signposting ("First... Second... Therefore...")?
[ ] Conclude with a clear summary of why I win?
My strongest moment: _______________
My weakest moment: _______________
One thing I'll practice next time: _______________
EXERCISE: ARGUE BOTH SIDES
Topic: [Choose a debatable topic]
STEP 1: Write the strongest 3-point argument FOR the position (5 min)
1. [Argument + evidence]
2. [Argument + evidence]
3. [Argument + evidence]
STEP 2: Write the strongest 3-point argument AGAINST the position (5 min)
1. [Argument + evidence]
2. [Argument + evidence]
3. [Argument + evidence]
STEP 3: Identify which side has the stronger case and WHY (2 min)
Stronger side: ___
Key reason: ___
BENEFIT: Forces you to understand both perspectives deeply
EXERCISE: 60-SECOND REBUTTALS
Read the following argument, then respond in 60 seconds:
Argument: "[Statement to rebut]"
Your rebuttal must include:
1. Acknowledge the point (avoid straw man)
2. Identify the flaw (evidence, logic, or significance)
3. Present your counter with evidence
4. Explain why your counter matters more
Timer: 60 seconds. Go.