DEBATE STRUCTURES
Explain the PEEL structure in debating. What does each letter stand for, and how does it help construct strong arguments?
PEEL = Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. You make a Point (state your argument), provide Evidence (facts, stats, examples), Explain why it matters, and Link back to the motion. It ensures clarity and logical flow.
Motion: This House would ban the use of facial recognition technology in public spaces. Identify two key terms in this motion and define them.
Facial recognition technology: Software that identifies individuals based on facial data. Public spaces: Areas open to all (streets, malls, transit hubs). Definitions determine scope — whether surveillance extends to semi-public or private commercial areas.
“If we allow students to use calculators in exams, soon they’ll stop learning basic math altogether.”
Slippery slope fallacy – assumes one small step (calculators) will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome (no math learning) without proof.
“Homework should be banned because it causes stress and reduces free time for students.”
While stress exists, homework teaches discipline and independent learning. Moderate homework builds responsibility and helps reinforce classroom learning, preparing students for future workloads.
Define two keywords! This House believes that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good to democracy.
Artificial intelligence: Systems capable of performing tasks requiring human intelligence (e.g. decision-making, prediction). Democracy: A system of government based on representation, participation, and informed decision-making.
Define the AREL structure (Assertion, Reasoning, Evidence, Link). Give an example of how it might be used in a debate about environmental policy.
AREL: Assertion (state claim), Reasoning (why it’s true), Evidence (proof), Link (tie to motion). Example: Assertion: We should reduce car emissions. Reasoning: Cars are a major cause of CO₂. Evidence: Transport causes 30% of global emissions. Link: Therefore, reducing emissions mitigates climate change.
Motion: This House believes that developing countries should prioritize economic growth over environmental protection. Define “prioritize” and “environmental protection" within the given context.
Prioritize: To allocate greater resources or policy importance. Environmental protection: Measures to conserve natural ecosystems and reduce pollution. Framing “prioritize” shapes whether trade-offs are justified or morally problematic.
“You shouldn’t listen to her argument about climate change because she drives a car.”
Ad hominem fallacy – attacks the person’s behavior instead of addressing the argument’s logic or evidence.
“The death penalty deters crime because people fear punishment.”
Studies show no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment. Crime often stems from social factors, not rational fear of punishment.
Present one argument (using PEEL) for the motion: This House believes that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good to democracy.
Point: AI harms democracy by amplifying misinformation through algorithms. Evidence: Social media AI boosts engagement, not accuracy—studies show false news spreads 70% faster. Explanation: When citizens are misinformed, they vote based on falsehoods, undermining legitimacy. Link: Therefore, AI’s current use weakens democratic decision-making.
What is the Stakeholder Analysis method, and why is it important when constructing arguments in policy debates?
Stakeholder Analysis identifies groups affected by the motion (e.g. citizens, businesses, government) and analyzes how each group is impacted. It helps clarify which side benefits more, strengthening comparative analysis.
This House believes that the glorification of theoretical research over applied research does more harm than good. Identify and define three key terms and explain why they matter.
Glorification: The excessive praise or valuing of something, beyond its practical worth. Theoretical research: Knowledge-driven studies without immediate real-world applications. Applied research: Research aimed at solving specific, practical problems. The motion questions academic priorities and resource allocation—definitions determine whether “glorification” refers to funding, prestige, or public perception.
“Government surveillance is justified because it protects national security. At the same time, people should not worry about privacy because only criminals have something to hide.”
Inconsistency & false dilemma – Contradicts itself by justifying privacy invasion yet claiming privacy only matters to criminals. Oversimplifies complex privacy concerns. Basically, it explains how it has concerns for national security but neglects privacy laws for citizens.
“Universal basic income discourages people from working, which harms productivity and innovation.”
Evidence from pilot programs (e.g. Finland) shows people still work but pursue education or entrepreneurship. UBI provides security, not laziness—it can increase innovation by reducing fear of failure.
Provide one rebuttal to the motion:
This House believes that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good to democracy.
Not all AI harms democracy—AI can also detect misinformation and improve voter education. The problem lies in misuse, not the technology itself. Proper regulation can make AI a democratic asset.
Explain how the Burden of Proof and Burden of Rebuttal function within a debate. How do these burdens differ between the Proposition and Opposition teams?
Burden of Proof: The duty to prove your side’s case (mainly on Proposition). Burden of Rebuttal: The duty to respond to opposing arguments (shared by both sides). Prop must build the world; Opp must show why it fails or causes harm.
Motion: This House regrets the dominance of aesthetic appeals in environmental activism (e.g., fearing the loss of beautiful landscapes or cute animals) at the expense of systemic or justice-based framings. Identify and define three key terms and discuss how they frame the debate.
Aesthetic appeals: Environmental messaging centered on beauty, emotion, and imagery rather than policy or ethics (e.g., “save the pandas”). Systemic framings: Approaches focusing on institutional or economic structures causing environmental harm. Justice-based framings: Approaches linking environmental issues to equity, human rights, and power. These definitions determine whether the debate is about effectiveness of messaging or moral priorities in advocacy.
“If we legalize euthanasia, next we’ll legalize murder — because both involve ending lives.”
False equivalence and slippery slope – equates voluntary, consent-based euthanasia with murder, ignoring moral and legal distinctions.
“Social media should be regulated because it spreads misinformation that harms democracy. Over 60% of adults see false news on these platforms, which affects how people vote. Regulating social media protects voters with accurate information.”
Regulation risks censorship and government overreach, which can harm democracy more than misinformation. Education and media literacy empower users without infringing free speech.
Describe the Comparative Weighing Mechanism (weighing impacts by magnitude, probability, and timeframe). How can debaters use it strategically in closing speeches?
Debaters weigh impacts by: Magnitude (how big the effect is), Probability (how likely), Timeframe (how soon). Example: A short-term economic crisis (high probability) might outweigh long-term hypothetical harms. Strategic use: summarize why your side’s impacts are more significant and realistic. Note: kind of like opportunity cost
Motion: This House believes that humanitarian aid organisations, when allocating aid budgets, should allocate towards causes with the perceived highest probability of succeeding at alleviating suffering rather than towards causes perceived to impact the most vulnerable. Identify and define three to four key terms in this motion.
In this motion, humanitarian aid organisations are groups like NGOs or UN agencies that provide relief during crises. Allocating aid budgets refers to how these groups decide where limited resources should go, introducing questions of priority and trade-offs. The phrase “causes with the perceived highest probability of succeeding at alleviating suffering” means directing funds to programs most likely to produce measurable positive outcomes — a utilitarian, results-based approach. In contrast, “causes perceived to impact the most vulnerable” focuses on helping those in greatest need, such as refugees or people in extreme poverty, even if success is uncertain. The key clash is whether aid should aim for maximum effectiveness (helping the most people) or moral duty (helping those who suffer most).
"If we allow people to refuse vaccinations, then next they'll want to refuse all medical treatments, and soon society will collapse due to a health crisis. Therefore, refusing vaccinations must be banned."
At first, this sounds reasonable as it warns about a serious consequence. However, it commits the slippery slope fallacy by assuming without evidence that one choice inevitably leads to an extreme chain of events (refusing all medical treatments and societal collapse). This ignores other possibilities, such as people selectively choosing or regulations preventing wider harm. So the argument exaggerates outcomes to force a conclusion.
“Allowing genetic engineering in humans will eliminate diseases and make future generations healthier. Ethical concerns are minor compared to the potential benefits to humanity.”
Ethical concerns aren’t minor—they determine social trust. Unchecked genetic engineering risks inequality (designer babies) and unforeseen side effects. Benefits don’t outweigh the potential societal harm if misused.