LET ' S D IV E IN T O
TH E A R T O F
A RG
B AUTIIN
N GG!G U ID E
DE
d Res pon si b i l i t ies
Roles a n
o) Resp on sib i l it i es
ve Tea m (P r
Affirmati
First Affirmative Speaker Second Affirmative Speaker: Third Affirmative Speaker
Role: Introduce the debate topic and Role: Strengthen the affirmative case by Role: Rebut the arguments presented by
present the affirmative team's main adding additional arguments and the negative team.
arguments. evidence. Responsibilities:
Responsibilities: Responsibilities: Refute the negative team’s points.
Define key terms. Reiterate key points. Reinforce the affirmative arguments.
Outline the affirmative case. Provide further evidence and examples. Summarize the affirmative cas
Present the first set of arguments with Address potential counterarguments
supporting evidence anticipated from the negative team.
n ) Resp on si b i l it i es
i ve Tea m (C o
Negat
First Negative Speaker: Second Negative Speaker: Third Negative Speaker
Role: Respond to the affirmative team’s Role: Strengthen the negative case by Role: Rebut the arguments presented by
arguments and present the negative adding additional arguments and the affirmative team.
team’s case. evidence. Responsibilities:
Responsibilities: Responsibilities: Refute the affirmative team’s points.
Define key terms if necessary. Reiterate key points. Reinforce the negative arguments.
Outline the negative case. Provide further evidence and examples. Summarize the negative case.
Present the first set of counterarguments Address potential counterarguments
with supporting evidence. anticipated from the affirmative team.
Ne g a ti v e Positive Metrics
ar g u m e n t arg um en
t
• Prove the motion is true or • Define what “winning” looks like,
• Challenge the positive case by beneficial by explaining why such as welfare, fairness, long-term
showing the idea is harmful, impact, or feasibility.
the idea should be supported.
unrealistic, or unnecessary. • Compare both sides using the same
• Build a clear mechanism: show
• Expose flaws in logic or standard, ensuring arguments are
how the policy or idea works
assumptions, such as bad judged consistently.
incentives, poor feasibility, or
and why it leads to good
• Prioritize impacts, deciding which
ignored stakeholders. outcomes.
harms or benefits matter more and
• Defend the status quo or a better • Carry the burden of proof,
why.
alternative, explaining why meaning they must justify
• Explain trade-offs clearly, helping
rejecting the motion leads to better change or support with logic,
judges choose between competing
outcomes. evidence, and examples.
• Limit the impact of the proposition, outcomes.
• Frame the debate early, setting
showing that benefits are small,
definitions, scope, and values
unlikely, or outweighed by harms
that favor their case.
Let’s d eb ate!
ro tea m
The p
i v e t ea m
n e g a t
Th e
M o t i o n
Ver d i c t
i fi c a t i o n
Ju st