Debate and Argumentation Course

Lesson 1 • Core Components of Argumentation

Breaks down the claim-evidence-warrant structure and explains how each component functions. Provides the analytical lens used throughout the course.

Lesson 2 • Ethical Principles in Debate

Establishes norms of honesty, fairness, and respect that govern competitive and professional debate. Students apply these norms to case scenarios.

Lesson 3 • Debate Formats and Contexts

Surveys major debate formats and the contexts in which structured argumentation occurs. Students identify format rules that shape strategy.

Lesson 4 • Critical Thinking as a Foundation

Introduces critical thinking dispositions that underpin sound argumentation. Students practise questioning assumptions before constructing arguments.

Lesson 1 • Effective Research Strategies

Teaches systematic search techniques across academic, journalistic, and primary sources. Students build efficient research workflows for time-limited prep.

Lesson 2 • Types of Evidence in Debate

Categorises evidence as empirical, anecdotal, statistical, or expert testimony and explains when each type is most persuasive.

Lesson 3 • Evaluating Source Quality

Applies credibility criteria—currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, purpose—to assess sources. Students reject weak evidence before building cases.

Lesson 4 • Anticipating Opposing Evidence

Trains students to research both sides of a resolution and identify the strongest opposing evidence. Prepares them for the rebuttal skills taught later.

Lesson 1 • Deductive Reasoning

Explains syllogistic structure and validity conditions for deductive arguments. Students test whether conclusions necessarily follow from premises.

Lesson 2 • Inductive Reasoning

Covers generalisation, analogy, and causal inference as inductive forms. Students assess the strength of inductive conclusions from given evidence.

Lesson 3 • Abductive Reasoning and Inference

Introduces inference to the best explanation and its role in policy and scientific debate. Students practise selecting the most plausible explanation.

Lesson 4 • Formal and Informal Fallacies

Catalogues common formal and informal fallacies with debate-relevant examples. Students learn to name, explain, and exploit fallacies in rounds.

Lesson 1 • Building Contentions with Evidence

Teaches the claim-warrant-evidence-impact sequence for each contention. Students practise integrating evidence smoothly into spoken arguments.

Lesson 2 • Crafting a Strong Thesis

Guides students in writing a clear, defensible thesis that frames the entire case. A strong thesis reduces vulnerability to definitional attacks.

Lesson 3 • Case Architecture and Flow

Explains the standard case structure—contentions, subpoints, and impact hierarchy—and how flow sheets track arguments. Connects structure to strategic clarity.

Lesson 4 • Affirmative Case Construction

Focuses on building the affirmative position with a clear burden of proof and plan or value structure. Students draft a complete affirmative case.

Lesson 1 • Rhetorical Devices and Persuasion

Introduces ethos, pathos, and logos alongside devices like anaphora and analogy. Students embed rhetorical devices into prepared speeches.

Lesson 2 • Physical Presence and Nonverbal Communication

Addresses posture, eye contact, gesture, and movement as credibility signals. Students practise nonverbal alignment with spoken argument content.

Lesson 3 • Adapting Delivery to Audience

Trains students to read judge and audience preferences and adjust style accordingly. Adaptability is the bridge between strong arguments and winning ballots.

Lesson 4 • Vocal Techniques for Debaters

Covers rate, volume, pitch, and pause as tools for emphasis and clarity. Students record and self-assess vocal delivery against debate-specific criteria.

Lesson 1 • Controlling the Cross-Examination

Teaches techniques for maintaining control when opponents evade or filibuster. Students practise interruption protocols and redirection strategies.

Lesson 2 • Purpose and Strategy of Cross-Examination

Explains the dual purpose of cross-examination: gathering admissions and undermining credibility. Students distinguish productive from unproductive questioning.

Lesson 3 • Question Types and Techniques

Covers closed, leading, and clarifying questions and when each advances your strategy. Students practise question sequences that build towards admissions.

Lesson 4 • Using Cross-Examination in Rebuttals

Shows how admissions gained in cross-examination are used in subsequent speeches. Students practise citing cross-examination moments in rebuttal flows.

Lesson 1 • Principles of Effective Refutation

Establishes the four-step refutation model: state, attack, support, impact. Students apply the model to sample arguments before live rounds.

Lesson 2 • Flowing and Tracking Arguments

Develops real-time note-taking on flow sheets to track every argument across speeches. Accurate flowing prevents dropped arguments and lost rounds.

Lesson 3 • Attacking Evidence Quality

Teaches methods for challenging source credibility, recency, and relevance of opposing evidence. Students practise evidence cross-examination drills.

Lesson 4 • Turning Arguments

Explains how to turn an opponent's argument so it supports your position instead. Turns are high-risk, high-reward moves that shift round momentum.

Lesson 1 • Impact Calculus and Comparison

Develops the skill of comparing competing impacts by magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Impact calculus is the primary tool for winning close rounds.

Lesson 2 • In-Round Adaptation

Trains students to recognise when a prepared strategy is failing and pivot effectively. Adaptive debaters outperform rigid ones in elimination rounds.

Lesson 3 • Strategic Case Selection

Guides students in choosing cases and positions based on opponent tendencies and topic trends. Strategic selection maximises win probability before the round begins.

Lesson 4 • Time Allocation and Prioritisation

Teaches how to allocate limited speech time to the arguments most likely to win the ballot. Students practise triage decisions under simulated time pressure.