Preparation is where debates are won. The confident speaker who seems to have answers for everything didn't get there through natural talent—they got there through systematic prep. This playbook gives you the complete system: from the night before a tournament to the five minutes before your round.
Adapt these frameworks to your style. Some debaters need detailed outlines; others work better with mental frameworks. What matters is that you have a system—one that you execute consistently.
SUPERDEBATE EVENT PREP
The Night Before
The night before isn't for cramming. It's for consolidating what you know and getting your mind right.
- Review common topic areas: Skim your notes on political theory, philosophy, ethics, and culture. Don't try to learn new things—refresh what you know.
- Prepare 3-4 flexible case structures: These are outlines that work across multiple topics. A framework + 2 contentions shell that you can adapt quickly.
- Practice 5-minute timing: Run through one constructive speech out loud, with a timer. Hit your marks. This calibrates your internal clock.
- Review your CX question bank: Have 10-15 versatile questions memorized that work on many topics. "What's your strongest piece of evidence for that claim?" "How does that address the resolution directly?"
- Stop by 9pm: Your brain consolidates learning during sleep. Late-night prep gives diminishing returns. Read something unrelated, then sleep.
If you didn't prepare well before tonight: It's too late to fix that. Focus on what you do know, get sleep, and trust your instincts tomorrow. Exhaustion is worse than incomplete preparation.
The Day Of
Tournament morning is about execution, not learning. Your prep work is done; now you deliver.
- Arrive early: 30 minutes before you need to. Being rushed elevates stress. Use the buffer for calm setup.
- Read the room: Watch other debaters if rounds are happening. Notice what judges seem to respond to. The vibe matters.
- Materials check: Timer works. Paper stacked. Multiple pens (they die at critical moments). Water accessible.
- Light review: Skim your case shells and key evidence once. Don't try to memorize—just remind yourself what's available.
- Physical prep: Bathroom before rounds. Snack if needed. Stretch if you're stiff. Physical discomfort distracts from thinking.
If you're nervous: Everyone is. Find a quiet corner, take ten slow breaths, and remember: nervousness and excitement are the same physiological state. Label it as excitement.
When the Topic is Announced
SuperDebate often announces topics at the event. You'll have limited prep time to build your case. Here's how to use it.
When you see the resolution, work in phases:
- First 2 minutes—Brainstorm both sides: Don't commit to a position yet. What are the strongest arguments for affirmative? For negative? Get them all on paper quickly.
- Next 2 minutes—Choose your angle: Which side has arguments you can make confidently? Where do you have evidence? Pick your side and your 2-3 best points.
- Next 3 minutes—Structure your case: Hook (how will you open?), Contention 1 (your strongest argument), Contention 2 (your second strongest), brief anticipated objection response.
- Next 2 minutes—Evidence placement: What specific evidence do you have for each point? Quotes, studies, examples. Place them in your structure.
- Final minute—Opening line: Draft your exact first sentence. Knowing how you'll start reduces anxiety and projects confidence.
If you're assigned a side you didn't prefer: Trust your brainstorm. You identified strong arguments for that side—now commit to them. Debating the side you believe in isn't always easier; it just feels that way.
Prep Time Strategy (10 min distributed)
Your 10 minutes of prep time is a strategic resource. How you spend it often matters more than how you spend your speaking time.
Recommended allocation for a full round:
- Before Constructive: 2-3 minutes
- Finalize your case structure
- Write your exact opening line
- Review your strongest evidence
- Before First Rebuttal: 3-4 minutes
- Review your flow of their case
- Star the weakest points to attack
- Plan your attack order
- Note what they dropped from your case
- Before Closing: 1-2 minutes
- Draft your voting issues
- Write your final sentence
- Reserve: 2 minutes
- Keep this for unexpected situations
- Opponent makes an argument you didn't anticipate
- You need to restructure mid-round
The trap: Using all your prep before the constructive because you're nervous. Rebuttals are where most rounds are won—save time for them.
GENERAL 48-HOUR COUNTDOWN
When you know a debate is coming—whether a formal event, an important meeting, or a difficult conversation—this countdown gives you a preparation framework.
T-48 Hours: Research and Scout
Two days out, your job is gathering ammunition and understanding the terrain.
- Research the topic thoroughly: Primary sources first (studies, official documents, expert testimony), then secondary analysis. Don't just read summaries—understand the actual evidence.
- Research your opponent: What positions have they taken publicly? What arguments do they favor? What are their blind spots? If it's a formal debate, find recordings of past performances.
- Map the argument landscape: What are all the major positions on this issue? Who holds them? What's the best version of each? You need to understand more than just your own position.
- Gather evidence: Quotes, statistics, examples, precedents. More than you'll use—you want options.
Not all evidence is equal. Gather in this order:
- Peer-reviewed studies: Hardest to dismiss
- Official data: Government statistics, institutional reports
- Expert testimony: Named authorities with relevant credentials
- Journalism: From reputable outlets with fact-checking standards
- Examples and cases: Real-world instances that illustrate your point
- Logic and first principles: Arguments from reason alone
Opponents will attack your weakest evidence. Lead with your strongest.
T-24 Hours: Build and Stress-Test
One day out, you shift from gathering to constructing.
- Build your case structure: What are your 2-3 main arguments? In what order? How do they connect? Write a full outline.
- Assign evidence to claims: Each major point needs support. Place your evidence where it belongs.
- Draft key sentences: Your opening line, your closing line, your transition between points. Having these pre-written reduces cognitive load under pressure.
- Stress-test your weakest point: What's the argument you're least confident about? How would a skilled opponent attack it? Can you defend it—or should you cut it?
T-12 Hours: Anticipate and Prepare Responses
The night before, your focus shifts to your opponent's likely moves.
- List the 5 most likely attacks: Based on your research, what will they probably argue? Write them down.
- For each attack, write the steelman version: Don't prepare to respond to weak versions. Prepare for the strongest form of their argument.
- For each steelman, prepare 2 response options: Give yourself choices. Sometimes your first response won't work; having a backup matters.
- Identify your "if all else fails" concession: What point can you give up gracefully without losing the debate? Knowing this in advance lets you concede strategically rather than desperately.
For your 5 most likely attacks, fill out this matrix:
| Their Attack | Steelman Version | Response A | Response B |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. [Attack] | [Strongest form] | [First option] | [Backup option] |
| 2. [Attack] | [Strongest form] | [First option] | [Backup option] |
| ... continue for 5 attacks | |||
This exercise alone will make you 30% more confident. You've already thought through the hard parts.
T-2 Hours: Mental Preparation
Two hours before, stop adding new material. You know what you know.
- Review key facts: Run through your main evidence one more time. Not to memorize, but to make it accessible.
- Practice your opening: Say it out loud 2-3 times. Smooth delivery on the first sentence sets the tone.
- Visualize success: Close your eyes and imagine the debate going well. You're calm, your arguments land, you handle attacks smoothly. This isn't woo—it's what elite performers do.
- Physical preparation: Eat something light. Hydrate. Move your body a bit. Avoid heavy meals and excessive caffeine—both can make you jittery.
T-0: The Moment Before
In the final minutes, your job is to be present.
- Deep breaths: 4 seconds in, 4 seconds hold, 4 seconds out. Three rounds. This physiologically calms your nervous system.
- Affirm your readiness: "I've prepared. I know this material. I'm ready to engage."
- Focus outward: Nervousness often comes from internal focus—how do I look, what if I fail. Shift attention to your opponent, the topic, the judges. External focus reduces anxiety.
- Remember: they're nervous too. Your opponent is feeling the same thing. The person who handles the nerves better often wins.
RESEARCH PROTOCOL
Good research is systematic. Here's a framework that works across topics.
Step 1: Define the Core Question (Stasis)
Before you research, clarify what the debate is actually about. The Greeks called this finding the stasis—the point of actual disagreement.
- Factual stasis: Does the fact exist? (Is climate change happening?)
- Definitional stasis: What category does it belong to? (Is it a crisis?)
- Qualitative stasis: How serious or important is it? (How bad?)
- Procedural stasis: What should be done about it? (What policy?)
Most debates involve multiple stasis points. Identify which ones matter most for your resolution.
Step 2: Map Stakeholder Positions
Who cares about this issue? What do they believe? Why?
For any topic, identify:
- Direct stakeholders: People directly affected by the issue
- Indirect stakeholders: People affected secondarily
- Decision-makers: People with power to change the situation
- Experts: People with relevant knowledge
- Advocates: People pushing for change (and their opponents)
For each: What's their position? What are their interests? What evidence do they cite? Understanding the landscape helps you anticipate arguments.
Step 3: Gather Primary Sources
Primary sources are the raw data—the studies, the documents, the transcripts. Secondary sources interpret primary sources. Start with primary.
Where to find primary sources:
- Academic databases: Google Scholar, JSTOR, PubMed (for science/medicine)
- Government sources: Data.gov, Congressional Research Service, official statistics
- Think tanks: Brookings, Cato, RAND (be aware of ideological lean)
- Original reporting: Long-form journalism with cited sources
- Expert testimony: Congressional hearings, court depositions, recorded interviews
Step 4: Stress-Test Your Evidence
Before you rely on evidence, interrogate it.
For each key piece of evidence, ask:
- Recency: When was this? Has the situation changed?
- Sample: How large? How representative? Can you generalize?
- Methodology: How was this measured? Are there known problems?
- Source credibility: Who produced this? What's their track record? Any conflicts of interest?
- Replication: Do other studies find the same thing? Or is this an outlier?
If your evidence fails these tests, your opponent will find the weakness. Find it first.
Step 5: Build Your Evidence Hierarchy
Not all your evidence is equally strong. Organize it:
- Lead evidence: Your strongest, most defensible support. Use this prominently.
- Supporting evidence: Corroborates your lead evidence. Use when building depth.
- Backup evidence: If primary evidence is challenged, you have alternatives.
- Cut evidence: Material that's interesting but not defensible. Don't use it.
ANTICIPATING OBJECTIONS FRAMEWORK
The debaters who seem to have answers for everything prepared those answers in advance. Here's the systematic way to do it.
The Red Team Exercise
Pretend you're debating against yourself. Your job is to destroy your own case.
- Write your case summary in 3 sentences: What are you arguing? What's your best evidence? Why should people agree?
- Now attack it: For each sentence, what's the strongest counterargument? What evidence contradicts you? What assumption are you making that could be wrong?
- Rate the attacks: On a scale of 1-5, how damaging is each potential objection? Focus prep time on the 4s and 5s.
- Build responses: For each serious objection, prepare a response. Not a dismissal—a genuine engagement.
Imagine three audience members:
- The friendly skeptic: Wants to agree with you but needs convincing. What questions would they ask? What evidence would satisfy them?
- The hostile expert: Knows the topic and disagrees. Where will they probe? What technical weakness will they find?
- The uncommitted observer: Doesn't have strong views. What will make them lean your way? What will turn them off?
Prepare for all three. Different audiences need different approaches.
The Concession Strategy
Smart debaters know what they're willing to give up. Strategic concession isn't weakness—it's tactical flexibility.
Identify in advance:
- The obvious concession: A point that's clearly true and makes you look reasonable for acknowledging. "You're right that there are costs. The question is whether benefits outweigh them."
- The graceful retreat: A point you can abandon without losing your core argument. "I'll grant that specific example is imperfect. But the broader pattern holds."
- The line you won't cross: What must you defend to win? Know this clearly. Everything else is negotiable.
The Preemption Decision
Should you address objections in your opening, or wait for your opponent to raise them?
Preempt when:
- The objection is so obvious that ignoring it looks naive
- You have a strong response that benefits from going first
- Addressing it reframes the debate in your favor
Wait when:
- The objection might not come up (don't raise problems that weren't on their radar)
- Your response is stronger after seeing how they frame it
- You need the time for other arguments
CASE FILES: TEMPLATE AND EXAMPLE
A case file is your complete prep document for a specific position. Here's a template and a worked example.
Case File Template
RESOLUTION: [The exact wording of the resolution]
SIDE: Affirmative / Negative
DATE PREPARED: [Date]
THESIS (1 sentence):
[What you're arguing in the most concise form]
HOOK OPTIONS:
1. [Option A—vivid scene or quote]
2. [Option B—surprising fact]
3. [Option C—provocative question]
CONTENTION 1: [Title]
- Claim: [One sentence statement]
- Warrant: [Why this is true]
- Evidence: [Specific source with key quote/data]
- Impact: [Why it matters for the resolution]
CONTENTION 2: [Title]
- Claim:
- Warrant:
- Evidence:
- Impact:
CONTENTION 3 (optional): [Title]
- Claim:
- Warrant:
- Evidence:
- Impact:
ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS:
1. [Objection]: [Response]
2. [Objection]: [Response]
3. [Objection]: [Response]
BACKUP EVIDENCE:
- [Additional source for Contention 1]
- [Additional source for Contention 2]
CONCESSION POINTS:
- [What you can give up if needed]
VOTING ISSUES:
1. [First reason judges should vote for you]
2. [Second reason]
CLOSING LINE:
"[Exact sentence you'll end with]"
Example Case File
RESOLUTION: "Artificial intelligence poses more risks than benefits to society"
SIDE: Affirmative
DATE PREPARED: January 2026
THESIS:
AI's documented harms to democracy, labor markets, and safety
outweigh speculative benefits that remain largely unrealized.
HOOK OPTIONS:
1. "In 2024, an AI-generated deepfake of a political candidate
was viewed 50 million times before platforms removed it.
This is what democracy looks like now."
2. "Goldman Sachs estimates AI will displace 300 million jobs
globally. That's not a future prediction—it's already beginning."
3. "What happens when systems we don't understand make decisions
we can't reverse?"
CONTENTION 1: AI Undermines Democratic Integrity
- Claim: AI enables misinformation at unprecedented scale
- Warrant: Generative AI can create convincing false content faster
than fact-checkers can respond
- Evidence: MIT study 2023—AI-generated political content is
indistinguishable from human content in 68% of cases; shared
2.3x more than human content
- Impact: If voters can't distinguish truth from manipulation,
informed consent in democracy becomes impossible
CONTENTION 2: AI Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates
- Claim: Net employment effect of AI is negative
- Warrant: Unlike previous automation, AI affects cognitive labor—
the jobs we told displaced workers to retrain for
- Evidence: World Economic Forum 2024—AI eliminates 85M jobs,
creates 97M, but new jobs require skills displaced workers lack;
IMF 2024—40% of global jobs exposed to AI, with advanced
economies facing 60% exposure
- Impact: Mass unemployment creates social instability, not
"retraining opportunities"
CONTENTION 3: AI Safety is Unsolved
- Claim: We don't know how to make AI systems reliably safe
- Warrant: Alignment problem remains unsolved; AI systems pursue
proxy goals in unexpected ways
- Evidence: Anthropic CEO (Jan 2024)—"We do not currently have the
tools to fully explain why our models generate particular outputs";
Google DeepMind paper 2023—current safety techniques don't scale
to more capable systems
- Impact: Deploying systems we can't control in high-stakes domains
is reckless
ANTICIPATED OBJECTIONS:
1. "AI has benefits too": True—but the resolution asks about net
effect. Benefits are speculative; harms are documented.
2. "We can regulate AI": Current regulation is years behind
deployment. EU AI Act won't take full effect until 2026.
3. "Technology always creates new jobs": This time is different—
AI affects cognitive work, not just physical labor.
BACKUP EVIDENCE:
- Contention 1 backup: Stanford study on AI-generated news articles
- Contention 2 backup: McKinsey workforce transition analysis
CONCESSION POINTS:
- AI has genuine benefits in medicine, scientific research
- Some job displacement is inevitable with any technology
- Regulation could theoretically address some harms
VOTING ISSUES:
1. Documented vs. speculative: My harms are happening now;
their benefits are promises
2. Scale of impact: Democracy + labor markets + safety =
existential-level stakes
CLOSING LINE:
"When we don't understand how a system works, can't predict
what it will do, and can't control its effects—and we deploy
it anyway—we're not innovating. We're gambling with everything
that matters."