PM

● Definition

● Status Quo (Current situation)

○ What does it look like
○ What’s the problem with it

● Stance:
○ What do we support/agree with
○ What we don’t support/agree with
○ Mechanism (if needed. Usually in motions like “THW”)
○ How does our world look like if we implement mechanism or if we support the
motion
○ Trade offs (what are we willing to let go)
○ Burden for us to prove in order for us to win the debate

● Arguments
○ 3 levels of analysis:
■ 1st level
● What is the issue (Who the stakeholder is and what is
happening?) - Include Characteristics of the stakeholder.
● Why is it harmful to the stakeholder or why is it bad (and vice
versa)
● Impacts of the harm
■ 2nd level
● How it would benefit the stakeholder if you support the motion
● The impacts
● Why is this argument important to the debate.
■ 3rd level
● Comparatives (what it looks like in opp)
● Explain why that’s harmful

● Conclude speech
LO

● Rebuttals
○ Rebut the mechanism, the gov’s setup (say things like why is it a weak setup
for instance or why it wouldn’t work or why it would bring harm)
○ Deep level rebuttals on their argument
■ Why is the argument not true
■ Why is the argument not important
■ Why this argument isn’t part of the debate
■ Even if it’s true in their best case scenario, why is it still harmful, bad,
or low impact at best

● Counter narrative
○ What do we support/agree with
○ What we don’t support/agree with
○ Counter Mechanism (if needed. Usually in motions like “THW”)
○ How does our world look like if we implement counter mechanism or if we
don’t support the motion
○ Trade offs (what are we willing to let go)
○ Burden for us to prove in order for us to win the debate

● Arguments (1 & 2)
○ Title of argument
○ 3 levels of analysis:
■ 1st level
● What is the issue
● Why is it harmful to the stakeholder or why is it bad (and vice
versa)
● Impacts of the harm
■ 2nd level
● How it would benefit the stakeholder if you support the motion
● The impacts
● Why is this argument important
■ 3rd level
● Comparatives (What it looks like in gov)
● Explain why that’s harmful

● Conclude
DPM/DLO

● Rebuttals
○ Deep level rebuttals on their argument
■ Why is the argument not true
■ Why is the argument not important
■ Why this argument isn’t part of the debate
■ Even if it’s true in their best case scenario, why is it still harmful, bad,
or low impact at best

● Why are the things said in your PM/LO still standing or important in the debate and it
wins you the round (reiterate what PM/LO talked in their arguments)

● Arguments (1 & 2 (if ada))

○ Title of argument
○ 3 levels of analysis:
■ 1st level
● What is the issue
● Why is it harmful to the stakeholder or why is it bad (and vice
versa)
● Impacts of the harm
■ 2nd level
● How it would benefit the stakeholder if you support the motion
● The impacts
● Why is this argument important
■ 3rd level
● Comparatives (What it looks like in Gov’s or Opp’s world)
● Explain why that’s harmful

● Conclude
GW/OW

● What are the winning points that was said by your members

● Why is the argument from your members important to the debate

● Rebuttals
○ Deep levels rebuttals on their argument
i. Why is the argument not true
ii. Why is the argument not important
iii. Why this argument isn’t part of the debate
iv. Even if it’s true in their best case scenario, why is it still harmful, bad,
or low impact at best

● Weigh out arguments

○ What did we say and what did they say?
i. Why is our argument more important compared to their arguments
ii. Why our argument is more impactful/beneficial compared to theirs
iii. Why even in our worst case scenario, it’s still a desirable outcome for
us and it’s still a good thing

● Break deadlock (basically who wins this clash)

○ 7 deadlock breakers
i. Likelihood (Why is it likely to happen more on our side or on their side
(if it’s harms you’re talking about)
ii. Magnitude of harm (Why the magnitude of harm is less in your side or
why the magnitude of harm is more on their side) (benefits)
iii. Best case vs. Worst case (Why in our best case we get more benefits
why even in our worst case, it’s still ok compared to their best case)
iv. Probability (Why is the probability higher or lower on your side and
why it’s lower or higher or their side)
v. Reversibility (Why the harms cannot be undone and that’s a bad thing)
vi. Proximation (Why the impact is more proximate to us (if a good thing)
or to them (if it’s a bad thing)) (time, distance, value)
vii. Sustainability (Why the solution can be sustain in us and cannot
sustain in them)
viii. Tradeoffs