To write a debate case, read the motion for what it asks you to prove, define its terms the way an ordinary intelligent person would, and say plainly what your side must show to win. Then build two or three arguments, each a claim with its reasoning, its evidence and why it matters, and close by answering the other side and weighing the clash. The first proposition speech carries the definitions and the outline of the whole case.
EdCitation publishes this guide. Every rule in it comes from a rulebook we read on 27 September 2026: the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC) manual for British Parliamentary debate, the World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) rules, and the National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA) High School Unified Manual. Where they disagree, we say so. The template and the example case are ours.
EdCitation never writes any part of a speech or a case, and that is the point: the argument you can defend under questioning is the one you built. What it does is the research. Find sources searches published work for the strongest evidence on both sides of your motion, and Cite a source builds the reference for each card from the publisher's record.
What goes into a debate case?
A debate case has six working parts: the reading of the motion, the definitions, the model (for a policy), the burden, the arguments with their evidence, and the rebuttal and weighing that finish it.
| Part of the case | What it does | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Motion type | Tells you whether you must defend an action, a judgement or a claim about the world | WUDC manual 2.7; NSDA event rules; ESU World Schools guide |
| Definitions | Fix what the words of the motion mean for this debate | WSDC rules 5.1 and 6.2; WUDC manual 2.9 |
| Model | Says who does what, when and how, for a policy motion | WUDC manual 2.9; WSDC rules 5.4.2 |
| Burden | States what your side must prove to win | WUDC manual 2.6; WSDC rules 5.3 |
| Arguments and examples | Give the reasons, and the facts that show the reasons are right | WSDC rules 5.6 |
| Evidence | Attributes each fact to a named source, found with Find sources and cited to the NSDA standard | NSDA manual 7.1 |
| Rebuttal | Shows the other side's arguments are wrong, irrelevant or less important | WUDC manual 2.5 |
| Weighing | Explains why your side's arguments matter more, and by what measure | WUDC manual 2.6 |
The formats in this guide, in one line each: British Parliamentary has four teams of two and seven-minute speeches; World Schools has three speakers a side, eight-minute speeches and four-minute replies (English-Speaking Union, n.d.); NSDA Policy debate is two against two, and Lincoln-Douglas is one against one.
How do you tell a policy, value or fact motion apart?
The wording of the motion tells you its type, and the type sets what you have to prove.
Policy motions
A policy motion asks whether someone should do something. The World Universities Debating Council (2026) treats "This House Would" and "This House believes that X should" as policy motions, and gives the proposition "fiat": the debate assumes the policy passes, so "the government would never do this" is not an answer. The opposition may defend the status quo or offer a counter-proposal that uses the same or fewer resources. The NSDA's Policy Debate resolution is one "requiring a policy judgment" (National Speech & Debate Association, 2026).
Value and analysis motions
A value motion asks whether a statement is true or right, not what to do about it. The WUDC manual calls these analysis motions ("This House Believes That", "Supports", "Regrets", "Prefers"): the proposition may not bring a model, but must still define its terms. In a "This House Supports" motion, the proposition must show that the thing does more good than harm as it is likely to happen, not in the version it would prefer. The NSDA's Lincoln-Douglas resolution is one requiring a value judgement. The English-Speaking Union (n.d.) calls these "truth" debates in World Schools, and warns that the line between truth and policy is not always clear.
Fact motions
A fact motion asks whether something is, was or will be so. Matlon (1994), writing in Rostrum, the magazine of the National Forensic League (renamed the NSDA in 2014; National Speech & Debate Association, n.d.), gives "Capital punishment will deter crime" as an example and names two issues every fact motion raises: what would count as proof (the criteria), and whether the facts meet those criteria. None of the three current rulebooks we read names fact motions as a separate type, so treat a fact motion as a value debate whose criteria can be measured.
How do you write fair debate definitions?
A fair definition gives the motion the meaning an ordinary intelligent person would take from it, and leaves the other side room to argue. The WSDC rules put it as a test: if the motion has an obvious meaning, any other definition is unreasonable; if it has none, choose one that allows a reasonable debate (World Schools Debating Championships Limited, 2023, rule 5.1). The definition must match the motion's level of generality, so a general motion is defined generally.
What the rulebooks forbid
The rulebooks rule out four moves, in slightly different words:
- Squirrelling: twisting the definition to argue a case you prepared for a different motion (WSDC 6.3.1), or to dodge the burden the motion sets (WUDC 2.9).
- Truisms and tautologies: a definition that cannot be opposed (WSDC 5.1.3).
- Place-setting and time-setting: confining a general motion to one country or one period. WUDC's example: "This House Would allow abortion" cannot be defined as a rerun of Roe v Wade.
- Narrowing to the margins: WUDC allows excluding marginal cases (banning cosmetic surgery, but not for burns victims) and forbids keeping only them (banning it only for children).
The rulebooks differ on who owns the definition. WUDC gives the opening government "definitional fiat": the debate is about the motion as it defines it, and a definition can be challenged only for squirrelling or unfair time and place limits, in the Leader of the Opposition's speech. WSDC asks whether the definition is reasonable, and lets the first opposition speaker challenge it, accept it anyway, broaden it back to the motion's words, or challenge it and argue "even if" (rule 5.5).
When a definition is merely vague
A vague definition is weaker, not invalid: WUDC's answer is to point out the gap, not to redefine the motion.
What is the burden of proof in a debate?
The burden of proof is what your side must show for the motion to stand or fall. In the WUDC manual, a burden arises in only two ways: from the motion's own words, or from the arguments a team chooses to make. A team cannot create a burden for its opponents by announcing one, and failing a burden does not lose the debate automatically (World Universities Debating Council, 2026, section 2.6).
The rulebooks disagree in three places worth knowing:
- General principles. WSDC rule 5.3 says a motion stated as a principle must be proved as a principle: one example neither proves nor disproves it.
- The opposition's job. WSDC lets the opposition simply attack, or run a positive case of its own, but a promised case must be delivered (rule 7.4).
- No set burdens at all. In NSDA Public Forum, the rulebook says the debate is about advocating a position "not a prescribed set of burdens", and neither side may offer a plan (National Speech & Debate Association, 2026).
Say your burden aloud: it tells the judge what to measure. If the teams dispute the measure itself, the WUDC manual tells judges to decide that dispute rather than apply their own, and never to assume that the best consequences win unless a team argues it.
How do you write the first proposition speech?
The first proposition speech defines the motion, sets out the issues, outlines the whole case, says which speaker argues what, and makes the first arguments (WSDC rule 6.1); in British Parliamentary the Prime Minister also presents the model. Use this debate case template for the first speech, and cut what your format does not need:
- The motion in one sentence of your own. What the debate is really about.
- Definitions. The two or three terms that could be read more than one way, with what you exclude and why.
- The model (policy motions only). Who acts, what changes, from when, and what happens to those who do not comply.
- The burden. "We will have proved this motion if..."
- The case division. In World Schools, which speaker takes which argument.
- Argument one. Claim, reasoning, evidence (author and year), and the impact: who is affected, and how much. Find the evidence with Find sources, searching both sides.
- Argument two, built the same way.
- A pre-emption. The opposition's best answer, met before they give it.
- Weighing. Why your side wins even if some opposition points land.
- References for every card, built with Cite a source and kept ready if a judge asks.
How to write a debate speech that persuades out loud is in how to write a persuasive speech.
How is evidence used in a debate case?
It depends on the format. In NSDA debate, evidence means facts, statistics or examples attributable to a specific, identifiable, authoritative source; anything unattributed is the debater's own opinion (National Speech & Debate Association, 2026, rule 7.1.A). What to say aloud and what the written citation needs are in our guide to citing sources in a speech or debate; the rules on using evidence honestly are these:
- Paraphrase is held to the full text, with the paraphrased lines marked in the original. Summary is only for common knowledge: social contract theory needs no citation, "John Locke's Social Contract" does.
- Distortion is adding or removing words so the author's conclusion changes, such as deleting "not".
- Clipping is claiming to have read a marked card in full when you skipped part of it.
- A straw argument is quoting a position an author set out in order to reject it, as if the author held it.
British Parliamentary and World Schools differ. At WUDC there is no internet or AI in the fifteen minutes of preparation, and the judge is an "ordinary intelligent voter" who does not read technical journals, so facts must be explained rather than cited. In World Schools impromptu rounds, teams get an hour and may bring only an English dictionary, a bilingual dictionary and a one-volume encyclopaedia or almanac. Prepared motions are released weeks ahead, which is when the research is done.
A debate case example, on a motion of our own
This example and its motion are ours: This House would abolish homework in primary schools. The evidence is real; we read both papers' published abstracts on 27 September 2026.
Definitions. Primary school: the years before secondary school, roughly ages five to eleven. Homework: work set by the school to be done at home. We exclude reading for pleasure that nobody sets or marks. (An opposition could call that homework; the exclusion stands only if it is marginal.)
Model. Schools may not set compulsory work for home. Nothing stops a family doing more.
Burden. We will have proved the motion if homework at this age brings too little benefit to justify its cost in children's time.
Argument one: the benefit is not there. Jerrim et al. (2020) compared the same pupils' homework time across school subjects in 24 countries, a design they argue is less confounded than most earlier studies, and found little evidence that the amount of homework primary pupils are assigned relates to their achievement. Spoken: "Jerrim, 2020, in the European Journal of Education."
Argument two: the older evidence points the same way at this age. Cooper et al. (2006), synthesising United States research from 1987 to 2003, found the homework and achievement correlation stronger in grades 7 to 12 than in kindergarten to grade 6.
Pre-emption. The opposition's best card is the same review: Cooper et al. (2006) found generally consistent evidence that homework helps achievement overall, while noting that every study had design flaws. Our answer is the age split in that same review.
Weighing. The opposition's strongest line is not "homework works" but "fix homework", and Jerrim et al. (2020) themselves read their result as a call to improve primary homework. Our weighing: the motion compares abolition with homework as it is set now, and a better homework that does not yet exist is a counter-proposal the opposition must model and defend.
That is why you read the whole abstract: a proposition that quoted the finding but not the authors' reading of it would be caught cherry-picking, which our guide to logical fallacies and how to answer them covers.
How does EdCitation help you research a debate case?
EdCitation is the best place we know to find a debate case's evidence, because it searches the published record and returns real works, never a summary composed from memory. Find sources, free with no account, searches about 300 million published works by topic or by the claim a sentence needs to support, with filters for the kind of source, the years and open access. Search the claim, then its opposite: the other side's best card is the one you most need to read.
Finding the evidence
We searched "homework primary school achievement" on 27 September 2026. The record source was Crossref and the total was 1,826,118 works. Among the first ten results was the paper our example case rests on: "The association between homework and primary school children's academic achievement. International evidence from PIRLS and TIMSS", by John Jerrim, Luis Alejandro Lopez-Agudo and Oscar D. Marcenaro-Gutierrez, 2020, in the European Journal of Education, marked not retracted.
Citing it
Cite a source, also free, took the DOI 10.1111/ejed.12374, read the record from Crossref, found no retraction or notice, and returned this APA 7 entry, with the journal and volume in italics:
Jerrim, J., Lopez-Agudo, L. A., & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D. (2020). The association between homework and primary school children’s academic achievement. International evidence from PIRLS and TIMSS. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12374
It builds the same entry in MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard, IEEE and Vancouver. When we ran the Cooper review's DOI, it set the title in sentence case, as APA 7 asks, matching the entry in our references. Before a tournament, paste your whole card list into Verify references, free, to confirm that each work exists and has not been retracted.
Quick questions
How long should a debate case be?
As long as the first speech allows: seven minutes in British Parliamentary, eight in World Schools. Two or three well-proved arguments beat five asserted ones.
Who defines the motion in a debate?
The first proposition speaker (the Prime Minister in British Parliamentary). The opposition may challenge an unreasonable definition, but only in its first speech under WSDC rules and the Leader of the Opposition's speech under WUDC rules.
What is squirrelling in debate?
Squirrelling is twisting the definition to argue something other than the motion, or to escape its burden. Both the WSDC rules and the WUDC manual forbid it.
Do you need evidence in a debate case?
In NSDA events, yes: evidence must come from a named, authoritative source, and EdCitation's free Find sources is where to look. In British Parliamentary, explained reasoning and well-known examples do the work.
Can EdCitation write my debate case?
No. EdCitation never writes any part of a case or speech. It finds the published evidence, builds each reference and checks the list; the argument is yours.
References
- Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001001
- English-Speaking Union. (n.d.). Introduction to WSDC format. https://www.esu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Introduction-to-World-Schools-format-guide.pdf
- Jerrim, J., Lopez-Agudo, L. A., & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D. (2020). The association between homework and primary school children’s academic achievement. International evidence from PIRLS and TIMSS. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12374
- Matlon, R. (1994). Propositions of fact. Rostrum, 19–20. https://www.uvm.edu/~debate/NFL/rostrumlib/propfactmatlon1294.pdf
- National Speech & Debate Association. (n.d.). History. https://www.speechanddebate.org/history/
- National Speech & Debate Association. (2026). 2026-2027 high school unified manual (Version 2027.1.2). https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/
- World Schools Debating Championships Limited. (2023). Tournament committee and debate rules (Updated November 2023). https://idebate.net/EuroSDC/Documents/WSDC%20Rules%20-%20November%202023%20Version.pdf
- World Universities Debating Council. (2026). Debating & judging manual (Ottawa WUDC 2027 ed.). https://www.worlddebating.org/wudc-manual