se da un énfasis en el humor, así como en la lógica y la actuación.

Here are a few guidelines to help you learn how to prep for impromptu

Look for important words in the motion

b) Should or justified – need to prove why there is a moral or practical imperative

c) Relevant themes (ex. Environment, legal, education)

Figure out why we are having the debate

b) How is the motion going to change the status quo?

Beyond the actors explicitly stated in the motions, what other actors are impacted by
the resolution, and what side of the motion do they all fit under? Check out our video on
how to do an actors wheel below!
Figure out what kind of motion this is
a) Recognize the kind of motion and plan how you will meet the burdens for your side

b) Read more about burdens

The motion needs a model if:

a) The motion heavily implies the need for a plan

b) Limitations on a group or action is needed

Walkthrough the case with your partner

b) Do you have the most important arguments?

c) Are there any contradictions that your need to fix?

d) Does your case have a consistent central premise?

X is bad
Proposition Opposition

The amount or nature is harmful It is not really a problem

The amount or nature causes the harms It is caused by something else

The harms outweigh the benefits The benefits outweigh the harms
The ends justify the means

Proposition Opposition

There is a big problem The problem is really something else

Only x can solve it It is better left to some other group

The benefits outweigh the harms The harms outweigh the benefits

X has failed
Proposition Opposition

There is an established set of criteria that works towards x goal Its actual purpose if something
else

It is not meeting its criteria or goal It’s getting there, we just need more x

The failure is causing significant harms The harms are small compared to the current or potential
benefits

Las resoluciones debatidas a menudo fomentan debates humorísticos. Además, esta forma de
debate se centra en un tema específico o una cita. El competidor tiene una ventana de tiempo
muy corta, por lo general no más de unos pocos minutos para llegar a un discurso que
generalmente dura unos minutos. Este discurso se basa en cómo el orador interpreta el mensaje y
si el orador está o no de acuerdo con la cita.

The goal of a reply should be to reframe the material, compare the cases, and explain why you
won. Highlighting a point in the round should always be followed by crystallization of the idea, and
impacting it. Try framing your reply using questions or themes. That way when you discuss the
contents of the round, it will encourage you to summarize less.

Persuasive Words

Persuasive words are the easiest of the three to incorporate into your style. Simply expanding your
vocabulary will assist you in any round, but there are times when it is critical to move your judges.
The goal of persuasive language is to move someone past what your argument would have done
naturally. This is most effective, in rounds that are discussing individuals. When you are in those
rounds, there should always be a discussion about the impacts to the individual. When you are
impacting, the goal is to show accurate outcomes for that person, but make them seem important.
Read the following sentences and see which one you find most persuasive.

It is important that there are special washrooms for gender non-conforming students in schools so
that they do not face discrimination.

It is critical that we have an accepting, and safe environment for gender non-conforming students
so that schools can become a secure place to learn for everyone to learn.
Those two sentences are roughly the same length, but one is far more persuasive than the other.
The second sentence has words and phrases that build audience connection. All parents and
judges want students to feel accepted and learn, so using these words helps them relate to and
have compassion for whatever student you are discussing.

Loaded Words

Loaded words can be useful in almost every debate, especially with experienced judges. Loaded
words, is a concept used to describe words that have a lot of meaning associated with them. These
words allow people to fill in analysis for you.

What does that mean?

Sometimes you don’t have enough time to say everything you want to. There may be a complex
piece of economic analysis, or a principle in law that is difficult to explain. Loaded words allow
judges to remember those things, without you having to explain each piece fully. The loaded
words you use will depend on the specific round you are in, so doing lots of reading before a
tournament can be extremely helpful.

Examples of loaded words and phrases: global warming, glass ceiling, and poverty cycle

Debate Words

Especially in higher levels of debate, debaters will use words or phrases that can be confusing to
those who haven’t encountered them. Here are some important debater words, and appropriate
times to use them.

Analysis

Analysis is a word used to describe the ideas that prove your point. When you have complex ideas
in LEET for example, that is analysis. Analysis is a good word to use instead of points, or
arguments.

For example, instead of saying: we gave you a lot of different reasons as to why there would be
war, you could say: our analysis demonstrated why there would be war. It makes it sound more
professional, and it allows you to say more with fewer words.

Nuance

Nuance means very detailed analysis. It can also be used to refer to parts of your analysis that are
super specific to either the resolution or a specific actor. It implies elegance or sophistication in
your argument.

An area where debaters commonly use the word nuance is when rebuilding. They might say
something like: my opponents didn’t deal with the nuance of our arguments… which just means
that they are saying you didn’t deal with all the parts of their argument, or the full analysis.

False Dichotomy

False Dichotomy is a word that means “false choice”. Your opponents try to paint you into a corner
by giving you two choices, when there are many more than two. Saying so, in your clash, helps
your judges realize that your opponents weren’t giving you a fair choice or an accurate
characterization.

Slippery Slope

Slippery slope is a term that is used to describe analysis that is unrealistic.

For example: When we allow seals to eat as much fish as they want, we will have no more fish,
which will cause all other ocean species to die out, resulting in a world famine.

That is clearly unreasonable analysis, and could be described as a slippery slope. Not all slippery
slopes need to be that ridiculous, but if it seems unlikely to occur, and they don’t give you
sufficient analysis, then slippery slope is a good word to use in clash.

Claim

A “claim”, is debate lingo for something you have said in argumentation. So if you make an
argument, you are making a claim about whatever your argument is centralized on.

LATIGO:

The area you are winning on.

Find the most important issue to the debate that you and your side are winning on.

Re-frame the debate around that main issue. (You can do this by making it a big question, or by
placing all of the other side’s material under it). Strategically you do this because then it appears
as if you have beat them on all of those other issues you frame it under, even if you haven’t.

Explain how you have won that issue, and why that means you have won the debate.

The area you are losing.

Find the area you are losing on to your opponents. This will likely be what they focus on in their
reply.

Compare that issue, against the one you are winning on. This is called comparative.

Then, explain why even if they win the one issue, yours is more important.

This strategy is more difficult and advanced, but it is also more potentially rewarding

1. INDIVIDUAL BRAINSTORMING

Debaters prepare for prepared debates in their weekly debate clubs meetings, where they
compare their research materials, share ideas, prepare cases, debate at practice debates.
Preparing for prepared debates together with doing exercises for improving critical thinking and
debate skills are the most common activities of the debate clubs. Debate coaches assist debaters
in preparing the cases.

The motions for impromptu debates are released an hour before the debate starts. You always
debate the motion for impromptu debate only once and you are on the side which the tabb
program assign it. Debaters need to prepare for impromptu debates by themselves, coaches are
not allowed to help them. The same is true also for other people – debaters prepare only within
their own teams and they can use only one almanach/encyclopedia in printed version. No
electronic toys – no computer, I-pad, telephone … are allowed. No material from previous or
practice debates can be used as well. Debaters debating in foreign languages, like an Australian
debater debating in Spanish or Chinese debater debating in Russian or Romanian debater
debating in English they are allowed to also have the foreign language/mother tongue dictionary.

Usually the prepared motions are the ones which demand more research and preparation time
and it is assumed that an average high school students will not have a lot of information,
knowledge and understanding of the topics.

PROJECT VIDEO: Slovakian debate trainer Matej Kohar speaks on How to Prepare for Impromptu
Debates at WSDA 2013

For the first 5 minutes of your preparation, think about the motion individually. Do not talk to each
other at this time. The reason for this is to preclude one or two individuals on the team to
completely dominate the discourse, which might result in good ideas or potential problems being
ignored due to peer pressure. Think about all elements of the case, not just arguments. What is
the issue on the table? What would you expect both sides to talk about? What are the different
ways of interpreting the motion? Do you know any examples relevant to the motion?

2. COLLECTIVE BRAINSTORMING

Spend the next 10 to 15 minutes putting your ideas together. Talk about the motion, and develop
a shared understanding of your task in the debate. Then write down in one place what you came
up with during your individual brainstorming. Use a spreadsheet divided into six fields: Definitions
and Models, Values, Examples, Stakeholders, Proposition arguments, and Opposition arguments to
help you categorize your ideas and come up with more.

Each of the fields is important in its own way. Definitions and models help you to see diferent
ways of understanding the motion and approaching the debate. This makes you less likely to be
surprised by the other team’s view of the debate.

Values are unifying points in your case. They tie your arguments together, and lend them strength
and consistency. If you brainstorm which values your team will be promoting in the debate, and
which values you are likely to oppose, you will be better able to link arguments together.

Thinking of examples before the debate is crucial. There is little time to make one up during the
debate, and even if it is possible, the result will often be under-analysed. Think about what the
example is, which mechanism it demonstrates and how it relates to the motion.
Stakeholders are people, social groups, organisations, or any other entities that are impacted by
the motion. Knowing who the stakeholders in the debate are helps you find new arguments, or
make arguments more concrete. It also helps if you think about who gets better off and who loses
if the motion is carried. That way you can also anticipate some arguments from the other side.

The last two fields are the meat of the debate: Proposition and Opposition arguments. You
absolutely must brainstorm both, though it makes sense to prioritize your own side. You need to
know what you will be saying in much more detail than what the other team will be saying.
However, you must have some idea as to what the major arguments of the other side are, in order
to be able to rebut them convincingly.

If you are struggling to find more arguments, you may want to use the SPLEE(E)M method. This
amazing acronym stands for Social, Political, Legal, Economic, Environmental, Educational and
Moral. Rather than focusing on who may be affected, as in the stakeholder analysis, now you are
looking at different types of impact. A policy may have far reaching consequences permeating
more than just one of these fields. Although not all will always apply, it is still good to check, if you
are not missing something.

3. DECISION TIME

Once you have amassed enough material, but no later than halfway through your preparation
time, you should stop trying to come up with more ideas and settle on a case you will be running
in the debate. This is the time when you should also decide who will be debating and in which
position. It is important that you focus on case consistency, and state what each argument claims
clearly, as you will be working more or less individually in the next stage of your preparation. Talk

about the arguments in some detail to ensure that you not only say the same points but mean
them in the same way as well.

Focus on consistency means that some arguments contain contradictory premises and so cannot
be run at the same time. If for example, one of your arguments requires that you promote
individual freedoms, while the other one restricts them to work, they probably do not belong in
the same case.

You should also decide which arguments will be brought in which speech. Remember that each of
the two speeches should on its own be sufficient to persuade an audience. It is no good if your
„split argument“ lists oractical consequences of the theoretical arguments in your first speech.
This is called hung argument and is really bad for you. The first argument does not work without
any connection with reality, and the second argument depends on the first for its truth.None of
them is enough on its own to persuade an audience, and so you need to think of another
argument. Hopefully, you have some in store from your brainstorming.

4. DEVELOPING ARGUMENTS

This step takes place at the same time as the next one, which means you should divide your team
into two groups. The first group will work on further developing the arguments which you have
chosen to use. Logically, it should therefore include the first two speakers. The objctive is to
deepen the analysis by answering questions about how causal relationships utilized by your
arguments work, and why they produce such effects as you say they do. Do not forget to tie in the
examples, draw impacts to the stakeholders and link to the values. The reason you have
brainstormed these is precisely because they help you to deepen the analysis of arguments.

5. DEVELOPING REBUTTAL

Meanwhile the rest of the team works on rebuttal. You should already have some idea of the
opposing case, since you brainstormed it at the same time as your own case. At this point you
should develop counterarguments. It is important to note that no argument is perfect, and there
will often be obvious avenues of attack against your case. You should strive to have an answer
ready, but do not expect an argument to be perfect. If there was one, the motion would not be
put to debate in the first place.

When working on rebuttal, keep in mind what the constructive part of your case is. Consistency is
paramount to rebuttal in two respects. Firstly, there must be consistency in what your rebuttal is
for a certain point throughout all your speeches. If different speakers answer the same point
differently, it seems that they have not prepared for that argument, it discredits the rebuttal
overall, and the later in the debate an effective rebuttal comes, the less will it be taken into
account by the judges as the other team then has less time to answer the rebuttal. Secondly, there
must be consistency between the rebuttal and the constructive arguments. If your rebuttal rejects
a premise that your arguments must contain in order to work, at least one of them will not be
believable. The judges will notice that, and the other team will be more than happy to point it out.

6. PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER

You should reserve some time at the end of your preparation for coming back together, and
talking through the work the two groups have done. This is to bring everyone up to speed. The
first two speakers need to know the rebuttal, the third speaker needs to know where the
arguments progressed. Check for consistency once more.

Prep time

Giving a debate speech is like pressing play on the prep time before it: a good prep time will yield a
good debate. Having a prep schedule can help make the prep session efficient and effective,
ensuring that you do not go into the debate without essential parts of the speech. This can be very
simple for beginners and can be tweaked and perfected for teams that are more advanced. The
key part of any prep schedule is at least some time at the beginning in silence before the
discussion of ideas starts. Giving students space to independently think about the motion before
their teammates start moulding their thoughts is a really good way to get more ideas out there
and avoid a misunderstanding of the motion. An example prep schedule for a beginner might
follow the pattern: 3 mins silent thinking, 7 mins discussing ideas an arguments, 4 mins discussing
rebuttal and Points of Information, 1 min reviewing the case and finishing off notes. Practicing just
preparing for debates can be a good way to make this process more slick and ensure that students
will know what they are doing when it comes to a real debate.
Knowledge

Getting a motion you know nothing about is a big fear that beginners have in impromptu debating.
Remind students that they can ask about words in the motion if they do not understand and that
they should take care to read any information slides or other prompts that they are given before
the debate. Encouraging students to stay on top of current affairs, or even just to check the news
on the run up to a competition will give them the competitive edge, but the majority of motions
do not require specific or in depth knowledge. Most debates can be approached by arguing from
first principles. So, for example, if a motion comes up on military intervention in Syria and a
student does not know much about Syria, they can argue the general case for or against military
interventions.

Arguments

When pre-preparing debates it is easy to access lots of statistics, complex ideas, and help
whenever you need it. When doing an impromptu debate, the internet and help from teachers is
not usually allowed, meaning that it can be hard to come up with these sorts of arguments. An
impromptu debate does not require the same level of researched detail as a pre-prepared debate
and the arguments will often be most effective when they are simple and clear, but specific to the
motion. One of the most difficult aspects of impromptu debating can be coming up with enough
arguments in the time given. Trying techniques like asking if students have thought about all the
groups affected by a motion can prompt more ideas. For example, in a motion about sports, have
they thought about the players, the fans, the general public, the youth, female footballers, the
managers, etc.