SuperDebate is where ancient rhetoric meets modern competition. The 28-minute structure mirrors classical oratory: your constructive speech is the formal oration—case building, evidence, impact. Your cross-examination is elenchus—the Socratic refutation through questioning. Your rebuttals are dialectic—the back-and-forth clash that reveals truth under pressure. The format is new; the skills it rewards are 2,400 years old.
What judges want is what Aristotle identified as the only things that persuade: logos (sound reasoning), ethos (credibility under pressure), and pathos (making the audience care). The 28 minutes are just structure. Excellence is ancient.
Whether you're preparing for your first tournament or refining your approach after dozens, understanding the format is foundational. Strategy without format mastery is guesswork.
FORMAT OVERVIEW
A SuperDebate round is 28 minutes of structured argument. Both debaters speak multiple times, in different modes: constructing cases, questioning opponents, attacking arguments, and making final appeals. The format rewards versatility.
| Phase | Time | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Constructive 1 | 5 min | First debater builds their case |
| Cross-Examination 1 | 3 min | Second debater questions first |
| Constructive 2 | 5 min | Second debater builds their case |
| Cross-Examination 2 | 3 min | First debater questions second |
| First Rebuttal 1 | 3 min | First debater attacks and defends |
| First Rebuttal 2 | 3 min | Second debater attacks and defends |
| Closing Rebuttal 1 | 3 min | First debater's final summary |
| Closing Rebuttal 2 | 3 min | Second debater's final summary |
| Prep Time | 10 min | Distributed strategically throughout |
The 10 minutes of prep time is your strategic reserve. You can use it before any speech. Smart distribution often determines the round more than raw debating skill.
Don't frontload all your prep. Recommended distribution:
- Before Constructive: 2-3 minutes (outline your case, plan opening)
- Before Rebuttals: 2-3 minutes each (plan attacks, prioritize responses)
- Reserve: Keep 1-2 minutes for emergencies (unexpected arguments, needed recovery)
Common mistake: Using 5+ minutes before your constructive, leaving nothing for rebuttals when you need it most.
PHASE-BY-PHASE GUIDE
Constructive Speech (5 minutes)
Your constructive is your foundation. Everything else builds on it or attacks it. A weak constructive limits what you can achieve in rebuttals. A strong one gives you ammunition for the entire round.
What judges want:
- Clarity: They should know your position within 30 seconds
- Structure: Numbered contentions they can flow (take notes on)
- Evidence: Specific support for each claim, not just assertions
- Impact: Why your arguments matter—so what?
What judges penalize:
- Vague thesis or unclear position
- Assertions without evidence
- Too many underdeveloped arguments (3 strong beats 6 weak)
- Running out of time mid-argument
Allocate your 300 seconds:
- 0:00-0:20: Hook and thesis
- 0:20-0:40: Framework/definitions (only if contested or necessary)
- 0:40-2:00: Contention 1 (claim, warrant, evidence, impact)
- 2:00-3:20: Contention 2
- 3:20-4:20: Contention 3 or deeper development of 1 and 2
- 4:20-4:45: Preemptive defense (anticipated objection)
- 4:45-5:00: Summary and call to vote
Practice this: Record yourself delivering a case. Stop at each timestamp. Did you hit your marks? Adjust until the timing is natural.
Common mistakes:
- The slow start: Spending 90 seconds on definitions and background before getting to substance. Judges tune out.
- The evidence dump: Listing facts without explaining why they matter. Data isn't argument.
- The kitchen sink: Throwing every argument you can think of. Depth beats breadth.
Cross-Examination (3 minutes)
Cross-ex separates good debaters from great ones. In 180 seconds, you must establish facts you'll use to destroy their case in rebuttals. No pressure.
Rules to know:
- The examiner controls the time; the witness must answer directly
- Questions only—no speeches disguised as questions
- The witness should answer the question asked, not the question they wish was asked
- Judges are watching for both substance and demeanor
What judges want to see from examiners:
- Purposeful questions (each one serves your rebuttal)
- Control without bullying
- Ability to get concessions
- Adaptability when the witness doesn't cooperate
What judges want to see from witnesses:
- Direct answers (dodging is obvious and looks bad)
- Composure under pressure
- Brief, accurate responses without volunteering extra information
- Not getting trapped into damaging admissions
Structure your CX as a funnel—broad to narrow:
- Clarifying (30 sec): Establish what they actually argued
- Testing (60 sec): Probe limits of their logic
- Trapping (60 sec): Lock them into damaging positions
- Confirming (30 sec): Repeat key admissions for the judges' notes
Exit strategy: If a line of questioning isn't working, don't push. Say "Moving on," and try another angle. Persistence looks worse than pivoting.
First Rebuttal (3 minutes)
Rebuttals are the heart of clash. You must simultaneously defend your case and attack theirs. Three minutes is not enough for everything—so you must prioritize.
What judges want:
- Direct engagement: Address what they said, not what you wish they said
- Prioritization: Hit the important arguments, not everything
- Line-by-line: Work through their contentions systematically
- Extensions: Develop your own arguments further, don't just repeat
The strategic choice: Attack first or defend first?
- Attack first if their case is weak—put them on defense
- Defend first if your case is under heavy fire—stabilize before attacking
- Most rounds: Split the difference. Brief defense, then attack, then extend
You can't respond to everything. Sort arguments into three buckets:
- Must answer: Arguments that destroy your case if unchallenged (spend 60-90 seconds here)
- Should answer: Arguments judges might find persuasive (spend 30-60 seconds)
- Can ignore: Weak arguments, tangents, obvious stretches (spend 0 seconds—let them die)
The judgment call: If you're unsure whether to address something, ask: "If I don't respond, will judges assume I can't?" If yes, respond. If no, skip it.
Closing Rebuttal (3 minutes)
Your last word. No new arguments—judges will ignore them and you'll look desperate. This is about crystallization: giving judges a clear reason to vote for you.
What judges want:
- Voting issues: Clear criteria for their decision
- Weighing: Why your arguments matter more than theirs
- Synthesis: How the round fits together
- Confidence: You believe you've won (without arrogance)
- 0:00-0:30: The ballot story—one sentence on why you win
- 0:30-1:30: Voting issue #1 (your strongest argument, why it's decisive)
- 1:30-2:30: Voting issue #2 (their weakest point, why it matters)
- 2:30-2:50: Final weighing—even if they win X, you still win because Y
- 2:50-3:00: Memorable close (callback to opening, principle, or direct appeal)
The last sentence test: If judges remember one thing, make it this: your final sentence should be your ballot story in its sharpest form.
SCORING CRITERIA DEEP DIVE
SuperDebate judges evaluate three dimensions. These aren't arbitrary—they map directly to what Aristotle identified as the foundations of persuasion. Argument Quality is logos (the soundness of your reasoning). Refutation Effectiveness is elenchus (the Socratic art of testing claims). Delivery is ethos and pathos combined (your credibility and connection with the audience). The Greeks figured out what persuades. Modern judges measure it.
Argument Quality (Logos)
This is the substance of what you're saying. Do your arguments make sense? Are they well-supported? Do they address the resolution? Aristotle called this logos—the appeal to reason and evidence.
What earns high marks:
- Clear claims with explicit warrants (the "because" is always visible)
- Specific evidence from credible sources
- Impact analysis—so what? Why does this matter?
- Internal consistency (your arguments support each other)
- Topicality (arguments directly address the resolution)
What costs you points:
- Assertions without support ("This is obviously true")
- Logical gaps between evidence and conclusion
- Contradicting yourself across speeches
- Tangential arguments that don't serve the resolution
- Misrepresenting evidence or opponent's position
An argument is not the same as an assertion. An assertion says something is true. An argument explains why.The distinction every judge holds you to
Refutation Effectiveness (Elenchus)
Can you engage with and defeat opposing arguments? This is where debates are won. The Greeks called this elenchus—the Socratic refutation. You're testing your opponent's claims through logical pressure, exposing weaknesses, and demonstrating that their conclusions don't follow from their premises.
What earns high marks:
- Directly engaging what your opponent actually said (not strawmanning)
- Explaining why their evidence or logic fails
- Turning arguments—using their points against them
- Weighing—showing why your arguments matter more even if theirs are true
- Extending your arguments in response to attacks
What costs you points:
- Ignoring strong opposing arguments
- Simply contradicting without explanation ("That's wrong")
- Attacking strawmen versions of their position
- Dropping arguments (failing to respond to attacks on your case)
- Ad hominem attacks or personal attacks
For each major opposing argument, ask:
- Is the evidence weak? Challenge source, methodology, or relevance
- Is the logic flawed? Show the gap between premise and conclusion
- Can I turn it? Does their point actually support my side?
- Can I minimize it? Even if true, does it matter?
- Can I outweigh it? Is my argument more important?
One of these five will work. Pick the strongest and commit to it.
Delivery (Ethos + Pathos)
How you say it matters. Not more than substance—but enough to tip close rounds. This is where ethos (your credibility) and pathos (your connection with the audience) become visible. Aristotle knew that the same argument delivered with confidence and clarity persuades more than one mumbled at the floor. Delivery isn't theater—it's the physical manifestation of your conviction.
What earns high marks:
- Clarity: Every word is audible and understandable
- Pace: Fast enough to cover ground, slow enough to follow
- Presence: You look like you belong there, comfortable and engaged
- Eye contact: With judges, not your notes or the floor
- Vocal variety: Emphasis on key points, not monotone
What costs you points:
- Mumbling, trailing off, or speaking too quietly
- Speaking so fast judges can't flow (take notes)
- Reading from a script without looking up
- Visible nervousness that distracts from content
- Arrogance, dismissiveness, or rudeness
When you feel yourself rushing, losing composure, or going flat:
- Pause. A deliberate 2-second pause is powerful, not weak.
- Breathe. One deep breath resets your pace.
- Find a friendly face. Make eye contact with one judge.
- Slow your next sentence. The reset cascades.
The paradox: Slowing down when nervous actually makes you sound more confident, not less.
COMMON TOPICS
SuperDebate draws from recurring subject areas. Building familiarity with these domains gives you an edge—you won't be starting from zero when topics are announced.
Political Theory
Questions about governance, democracy, rights, and the proper role of government.
- Classic tensions: Liberty vs. security, majority rule vs. minority rights, nationalism vs. globalism
- Know these thinkers: Locke (natural rights), Hobbes (social contract), Mill (liberty), Rawls (justice as fairness)
- Common resolutions: Voting policies, free speech limits, government surveillance
Philosophy and Ethics
Questions about right and wrong, how to live, and fundamental values.
- Classic frameworks: Utilitarianism (greatest good), deontology (duty-based), virtue ethics (character-based)
- Know these thinkers: Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Peter Singer
- Common resolutions: Ends vs. means, individual vs. collective good, moral obligations
Social Issues
Questions about how society should be organized and what we owe each other.
- Recurring themes: Equality vs. equity, structural vs. individual responsibility, tradition vs. progress
- Know these concepts: Systemic effects, unintended consequences, moral hazard, slippery slopes (and how to avoid fallacious uses)
- Common resolutions: Education policy, healthcare, criminal justice, technology regulation
Culture and Technology
Questions about how we live now and how technology shapes us.
- Recurring themes: Privacy vs. convenience, innovation vs. precaution, global vs. local
- Know these issues: AI ethics, social media effects, digital rights, platform responsibility
- Common resolutions: Content moderation, data ownership, automation, algorithmic accountability
For any topic area, prepare these elements:
- 3 key facts: Data points you can cite from memory
- 2 classic examples: Historical or contemporary cases everyone knows
- 1 counterintuitive take: A surprising argument that catches opponents off-guard
- Both sides: Know the strongest affirmative AND negative arguments
Do this prep for the four topic areas above, and you'll rarely face a resolution cold.
FIRST TOURNAMENT CHECKLIST
Your first competition is about learning, not winning. But being prepared helps you learn better. Here's what to bring and know.
What to Bring
- Timer: Your phone works, but a dedicated timer is less distracting
- Flowing materials: Legal pad or dedicated flow paper, multiple pens (they die at critical moments)
- Water: Dry throat derails speeches
- Snacks: Tournament days are long; hunger destroys focus
- Backup research: Notes on common topics, key quotes, evidence you've gathered
- Comfortable clothes: You'll be sitting, standing, and stressing—dress for it
How to Flow
"Flowing" is debate shorthand for taking notes during a round. Good flows win debates.
Set up your paper in columns:
- Column 1: Your constructive arguments
- Column 2: Their responses to your arguments
- Column 3: Your responses to their responses
- Opposite side of paper: Same structure for their case
Abbreviate heavily. "Inc" for "increase," "gov" for "government," arrows for causal relationships. Your flow is for you—it doesn't need to be readable by anyone else.
Key habit: Put a star next to arguments you plan to attack. Put an X next to arguments you plan to drop. This triage saves thinking time during prep.
Managing Nerves
Everyone is nervous at their first tournament. The debaters who look confident are just better at hiding it. Some practical approaches:
- Arrive early: Rushing amplifies anxiety
- Watch a round first: If possible, observe others before your first round
- Physical reset: Before your round, find a private spot and do 10 slow breaths
- Focus on process: Don't think "I need to win." Think "I need to give my constructive, then do CX, then give my rebuttal." One task at a time.
- Permission to fail: Your first tournament is reconnaissance. You're gathering data for improvement, not defending a record.
Five minutes before your round:
- Review your opening line. Know exactly how you'll start.
- Check your materials. Timer ready, paper ready, pen works.
- Physical check. Bathroom, water, adjust clothing.
- Mental check. Three deep breaths, then "I'm ready."
Rituals reduce anxiety by creating predictability. Design yours and stick to it.
After the Round
Win or lose, you're not done. The post-round process is where improvement happens.
- Ask for feedback: If judges offer comments, listen without defensiveness
- Debrief immediately: Write down what worked and what didn't while it's fresh
- Save your flows: They're a record of the round for later analysis
- Don't dwell: Process it, learn from it, then move on to the next round
The master has failed more times than the beginner has tried.Every experienced debater started exactly where you are