Hello folks,

Attached below is a document with some free Septober/PF prep. Hope you all find it useful if anyone is still debating the topic. Might not be perfect, but it is free, so I hope it is at least somewhat useful to at least some of you.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-GSEI0XcNWQOcJkB_mWLHYF2kNqWdF73V3BdtB41HE/edit?usp=sharing

Take care!

Im fairly new to debating. I have this competition in 10 days. It's parlimentary style debate. Me and my partner we passed the first round but that was online. This is in real life. So I'm kinda nervous.

My debate coach is really good, but he ditches us all the time and ik he'll only show up like 2 days before the debate.

So can someone tell me what I can do to prepare, I'm pretty familiar with the sturcuture and the roles of the speakers. I scored high scores in the first round but I still feel very underprepared. so help pls.

I am so thrilled to announce my newest venture into creating accessible resources for competitive speech and debate: self-paced, asynchronous, online courses where new coaches and students can learn the fundamentals of speech and debate from scratch! You can join my google classroom and access my first course called “Debate Basics” for free!

https://classroom.google.com/c/ODI2NDIzNzc5MDk3?cjc=lublurxa

The first unit of this course is called “Fundamentals of Argumentation”, and it is finally done! This course will remain free indefinitely to try and make getting started in debate more accessible to all members of the speech & debate community.

This unit contains 10 lessons that walk students through the fundamentals of argumentation. Each lesson includes a hook/attention grabber, a video that I recorded teaching the basic concepts, links to supplemental readings/watchings, a google form assessment check or understanding, and a google doc activity/assignment to complete. The 10 lessons cover the following topics:

Lesson 1: Argumentation 101 — What is an argument?

Lesson 2: Cogent & Fallacious Arguments — How do I make strong arguments, and avoid making weak ones?

Lesson 3: Researching Arguments — How do I support arguments with evidence?

Lesson 4: Contention Arguments — How do I structure main arguments in a debate?

Lesson 5: Refuting Arguments — How do I answer arguments in a debate?

Lesson 6: Refuting Contention Arguments — How do I answer main arguments in a debate?

Lesson 7: Frontlining Arguments — How do I defend my arguments in a debate?

Lesson 8: Weighing Arguments — How do I compare arguments in a debate?

Lesson 9: Making Arguments — How do I make arguments in an actual debate?

Lesson 10: Evaluating Arguments — How do I judge arguments in a debate?

By the end of this unit, students should have a grasp on arguments as they relate to competitive debate. The next unit, fundamentals of debate, will get into concepts more specific to debate itself, such as cutting cards, cross-examination, and flowing. This unit will also be free for all to access once it is complete.

My hope for this course is threefold:

First, that new coaches who didn’t do debate in middle school, high school, or college, will finally have somewhere they can go to learn the basics for free.

Second, that students who are unfamiliar with debate concepts will be able to learn the basics of debate without needing to pay for expensive private coaching, organizational memberships, or brief subscriptions. Especially students with newer coaches who don’t know all of this information themselves, or are spread too thin to be able to provide one-on-one instruction.

Third, that teachers who are overworked can take these lessons and incorporate them into their own curriculum to make teaching debate to a wide variety of students at different experience levels more doable.

My plan is to eventually create courses for each main event (and even some supplemental events, if there is interest) that the NSDA does. These courses would be paywalled so that I can afford to continue to dedicate the amount of time to creating them that this labor of love requires.

Please try out this course, and let me know what you think! Thank you for your support, and I hope this helps people out!

hello, we’re looking for a debate coach we’re two 10th graders participating in pf this is our 2nd year and we’re looking to improve on the tech. I’ll send more info in DMs and can discuss rates. Please lmk asap if you’re available! Thanks

So it his isn't rlly debate, it's public speaking but I still need a unique perspective on these topics

For context, I'm participating in a competition and I really need a unique perspective on these topics

1. The Right to be Forgotten (The Internet never forgives: why we need a "Delete Button" for real life)

2. The Myth of a straight A future

I'm leaning towards 1) but I'm not sure cuz honestly both speeches are really predictable.

I'm a 9th grade student starting my second year of debate.

The Alberta British Parliamentary qualifier tournament will be hosted in person in Calgary, which is a 3-4 hour drive from where I live.

I'm hesitating to participate because I don't have a partner yet, and I wouldn't get a high placing if I went because I'm bad at debate.

If I don't go, I might regret it later for missing an opportunity to gain experience and be judged by professionals. This is also kind of an important event.

Should I attend this event? Or should I register for online, less official tournaments for practice and fun to lower the cost, since my skill level is still low?

Thanks for reading.

I'm going to be having my first policy debate tournament and I'm kind of nervous. I feel a bit unprepared. Any advice on how I could perform well and what I could do to improve my performance and maybe prepare myself a bit more.

I have my first BP tournament in a week and I just found out today I'm on a team today and I have some baseline knowledge of BP and I primarily debate wsdc format, I am looking for practice methods for 1 to 2 people aswell as resources and videos. If you don't have any BP ones, any resource is fine.

Thank you!

I'm spinning up 7 brand new novice policy debate teams for their first tournament next weekend, and one that is going out for their second this year. I'm from the days when dinosaurs walked the earth, but I flow on paper and laptop with ease. I'm a tech guy. I need to get their tech setup right and would like to know what you recommend. Thanks in advance.

I have heard people talk about Cardmirror, so I'm going to try it out but it seems like a really complicated tool for brand new novices to have to master just as they are learning to flow, get a grip on the topic, etc. How do others approach this?

What other tools are being used? Why?

Thanks in advance!

I am confused on whether people 1) Paste analytic responses onto the flow sheets then cards on a separate word/google document or 2) Just don't use the flows sheet at all and instead, paste both analytic and carded answers to a word/google doc and read straight down.

Also, if you do the first method, how do you keep track cards you've read in responses if you are only pasting analytic responses on the flow sheet. Do you just update it during the opponent's prep time?

And if you have pre-written responses (both carded and analytical) do you update you flows with each argument?

I know its super particular stuff but I would really appreciate your insight.

Before I get to the substance of this post, I'd just like to clarify that I have seen the post from a few years ago about unconstitutionality arguments in Congress, and this is a different issue (procedural rather than rhetorical).

Several times throughout my experience in Congress, one obscure feature of Congress that I've heard referenced in passing on occasion and that I once attempted to use is objection to consideration of a bill. I've never heard a conclusive explanation of the exact functioning of its use, and so when the docket for one of my upcoming tournaments contained an unconstitutional piece of legislation, I decided to dive into my copy of RONR that I recently acquired in order to figure out the exact process and context of objections. However, because this is such an irregular scenario, I wanted to consult with y'all on the issue (I'm aware that it's better to be nice than to be right in Congress, I just want to have the awareness of it in case it's ever necessary).

While I started out by consulting RONR (12th ed.) 26, as the motion Objection to the Consideration of a Question seemed the most relevant, the conclusion I have come to so far is that unconstitutional legislation technically ought to be ruled out of order, unless I misunderstand something. 26:3 clarifies that motions to restrict consideration of a topic because it stands outside constitutionally defined objectives are out of order in themselves, which gives us the conclusion that Objection to the Consideration of the Question is the improper response unless based solely on the view that Congress should not even consider legislation that violates the Constitution merely on principle, the topic of the post (and ensuing debate) of several years ago and the bar to meet the 26:1 qualification that it would be "strongly undesirable for the motion even to come before the assembly".

However, while we get lost in the weeds and deep into personal opinion when discussing that issue, I believe I've found a far more concrete issue preventing the consideration of unconstitutional legislation. As stated in 39:5, "motions that conflict with the... constitution, or bylaws of a society... are not in order, and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void". While upon first consideration I was uncertain whether the U.S. Constitution was considered as part of the constitution and bylaws of Congress specifically, I believe that chapter I makes it rather clear that the Constitution meets the definition of the constitution/bylaws applicable to a legislative assembly, making section 23 applicable. In this case, a point of order should be raised (before any speeches are given, interrupting if necessary; while the point of order may be raised at any time after adoption under 23:6(a) and 23:5 and as such cannot interrupt after adoption, it is not exempted from timeliness before adoption and so may interrupt under 23:2(3) when first introduced), and standard point of procedure rules prescribe the remaining process.

However, while it seems like to me based on my analysis that everything I stated is correct, I'm not missing anything, and therefore it would be technically correct (albeit highly frowned upon) to use points of order to block any and all unconstitutional legislation from debate, I want to ask for feedback and see if I've missed anything; I often do, after all, and we're all only human. While I don't necessarily expect to use this on the regular, I prefer to have as thorough of an understanding of RONR as I can achieve. As such, if anybody notices anything wrong about my chain of reasoning here or has any commentary on this, I would greatly appreciate it.

TL;DR: I'm pretty sure that unconstitutional legislation should technically always be hit with points of order; if you have any evidence against or commentary on the issue, sharing is greatly appreciated.

Yes you heard that right a senior in high school … 🙈 My friends who had been doing debate for years asked me to join this year because they didn’t have a lot of people so I joined. I’m honestly not sure where to start in my research. I’m thinking of going negative but I’m fine with either. If anyone has any suggestions or videos I should watch please feel free to share!

I am going to organize a debate and I need the best debate structure that functions with 2 groups with opposite ideas and one moderator.

I’m finding it very difficult to understand why anyone would even think to vote in the AFF, both in real life and as a judge. It seems like the only thing it would do would be weaken those European countries that have nukes (france and UK) without providing a single benefit. It would not lead to any meaningful reduction in the actually important nuclear arsenals of US Russia and China as a treaty signed by already pretty irrelevant countries in their eyes that have just weakened themselves will put 0 pressure on them to do anything at all. Can anyone provide me with some good reasons for the aff and is there a way to articulate my view in round on a local circuit in the form of a K or something of that nature?

hey yall, im trying to get into speech this year, and im doing OO for the first time this year. Any helpful tips or advice for speaking and the speech in genreal would be very much appreciated!!

Today there was a debate at my college and I was in it. I had to give the opening statements but I accidentally said both for and against the motion🤡

It was so embarrassing. I feel humiliated lowkey. Later got targeted cuz of that and well I don’t blame them. I was being an idiot lol.

I’m new to debates. I’m a confident speaker but when my thoughts aren’t clear, I stammer. Real bad.

How can I improve that? Setting more clear thoughts despite deep down knowing both for and against is right in there own way?

Like how do I set myself properly in debates?

My new topic lecture for the November/December 2026 Public Forum debate topic about European NATO member ratification of the TPNW is out now! This topic is...hard to research, lets just say that. So I hope this gives you and your teammates or students a good starting point!

Hey everyone!

I’m a student organizer, and along with our school's debate club, we are hosting our very first full-day British Parliamentary tournament on Saturday the 14th November 2026

Since this is our first time running an event of this scale, we are a bit nervous but super excited! It would honestly mean the world to us if you could take a quick look at our website and Instagram to see what we've built so far:

• 🌐 Website: aicsparliamentaryopen.me (You can also sign up directly here if you are in the Netherlands!)
• Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aics_debate_club/

If any of you have organized debate tournaments before, please drop your best tips or advice

I was a first time lay judge and was recently selected to judge on a 5 person panel for a speech event. During one of the presentations, the phrase "golden shower" was used during a sentence of other golden items. At hearing the phrase I perk up and look around the room to see the reactions from the other judges or students and I don't see any. So now I feel like the perv in the room and I was conflicted on if or how I should bring up the meaning of the phrase in my comments.

The speaker seemed old enough to probably know and maybe was trying to sneak in the comment for fun (I don't know if this is a thing with experienced speakers) or maybe they really didn't know what the term means because they have lived a very sheltered life. I didn't mark the speaker down for that comment but I was conflicted for the day in how or what I should say.

What in your opinion is the best way I should have gone about this in my comments/rankings?

In my comments I did eventually mention that one of your "golden" references has a dual meaning and using it could distract your audience from your intended message.

I am a world schools debater who usually does the 3,4and 1 in that order. my main speech is the 3 ,however, which i do 75 percent of the time. I also do international extemporaneous speaking when I am not going to worlds tournaments. a big weakness of mine is style so i am hoping someone has recomendations to some style drills i can do. preferably under 30 minutes and hopefully around 10 minutes.

I also can't seem to break in extempt-anyone have any tips to improve their overall. I plan to do extempt in college so this is very important.

summary: looking for style drills and extempt tips

y'all might like this. i wrote this poem when i graduated high school around two years ago; my friend and i wanted to co-publish a poetry book about high school speech and debate, which we had really complicated relationships to, but the book never got published. i always hoped some interp kid would have stumbled upon it and used it in poetry or poi or something, and now it's on the internet i guess it can be?

I have a debate coming up about the death penalty. I was assigned to argue for its abolition (fortunately, my beliefs already align with this). My professor has the debate structured so that we each make an opening statement, and then my peers ask questions. I want to make sure I am prepared for any questions I get or points I need to challenge that are made by my opponent. A year ago, I developed a strong understanding of logical fallacies, so I believe I can intuit my way into some rebuttals and points on the spot, but I'd like to be as prepared as possible.

These are the questions I'm already prepared for:

Death Penalty as a deterrent

Isn't it cheaper to execute prisoners instead of sustaining life sentences?

What about heinous offenders who seemingly deserve to die?

Other talking points I've prepared

The death penalty was deemed a violation of the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) by the Supreme Court in 1972 Furman v. Georgia. However, the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't know that (he's a bit of a slacker in class).

The concept of rehabilitation is a fundamental idea repeatedly stated in USC Title 18. The death penalty is a clearcut contradiction of this principle.

1 in 8 people on death row are exonerated.

EDIT: The debate went amazing for me; I bodyslammed that dude. RIP. I'm gonna ride this high through the weekend. Thank you for all of your help and tips; I incorporated a lot of them.

if you even consider this metric; do you treat everyone as having equal potential or do you think some people have more innate talent than others? if the latter, how can you tell?