The Trial

Build a case. Defend it under cross-examination. Argue like a lawyer.

First Arguments
The Toolkit
Build Your Case
Cross-Examination
The Verdict

Three Accusations

Below are three controversial statements. For each one, you have 30 seconds to argue either side — it doesn't matter which. Just pick a position and defend it. Go on instinct. Don't overthink.

Accusation 1

Speak "Social media companies are more dangerous than tobacco companies."
Agree or disagree — 30 seconds, no preparation.
0:30

Accusation 2

Speak "A university degree is no longer worth the cost."
Agree or disagree — 30 seconds, no preparation.
0:30

Accusation 3

Speak "Artificial intelligence should be banned from making any decisions that affect human lives."
Agree or disagree — 30 seconds, no preparation.
0:30

When you argued, you instinctively did some of these things:

  • Made a claim — took a position
  • Used evidence — facts, examples, comparisons
  • Made a logical connection — explained why your evidence proved your point
  • Possibly qualified your position — "in most cases...", "to some extent..."

That's the structure of every academic argument ever written. Today you're going to make it deliberate.

6 Moves Every Arguer Needs

These aren't abstract theory — they're weapons. A weak argument uses one or two of these by accident. A strong argument uses all six deliberately. Click each to see what it does and how it sounds.

Move 1 The Claim +

Your central assertion. It must be debatable — not a fact, not an opinion, but a position that can be argued. Specific beats vague. "Governments should ban X" beats "X is bad."

In court

"The evidence will show that the defendant acted with both intent and full knowledge of the consequences."

In academic argument

"Universities should prioritise interdisciplinary research over single-discipline specialisation."

Move 2 The Evidence +

The factual basis for your claim. Data, research, cases, examples. Specific beats vague — "73% of breakthrough innovations emerged from cross-disciplinary teams" is evidence. "Many studies show" is not.

In court

"Security footage places the defendant at the scene at 11:43pm. The victim's phone records confirm a call was made at 11:40pm."

In academic argument

"Cross-disciplinary teams produced 73% of breakthrough innovations in the past decade, compared to 31% from single-discipline units (Nature, 2022)."

Move 3 The Warrant +

The logical bridge. Why does your evidence support your claim? This is the most overlooked move — most people state evidence and assume the connection is obvious. It never is. Say it explicitly.

In court

"Because the defendant had financial motive AND physical presence, there is no innocent explanation that accounts for both facts simultaneously."

In academic argument

"Because complex problems require multiple perspectives, cross-disciplinary teams can conceive solutions that any single discipline, however expert, cannot."

Move 4 The Qualifier +

Scope and honesty. A strong argument doesn't claim more than its evidence supports. Qualifying your claim makes it more convincing, not less — it shows intellectual honesty and makes it harder to attack.

In court

"While this evidence alone is not conclusive, it is highly probative when considered alongside the three witness statements that corroborate the same timeline."

In academic argument

"For most applied research — particularly in health, climate, and policy — interdisciplinary approaches tend to generate superior outcomes."

Move 5 The Steel Man +

Present the strongest version of the opposing argument — then explain why your position still holds. This is the opposite of a straw man. It shows you've thought seriously, and it disarms the best counterattack before it arrives.

In court

"The defence will argue that security footage timestamps are unreliable. Let me address that directly: the timestamp was corroborated independently by three witnesses who did not know each other."

In academic argument

"One might fairly argue that deep specialisation produces the foundational research that interdisciplinary teams depend on. This is true — and it is precisely why we advocate for balance, not abolition of specialisation."

Move 6 The Rebuttal +

When the other side attacks, you don't simply deny. You name the flaw in their attack and explain it. "That misrepresents my position" is not a rebuttal. Showing how it misrepresents it is.

In court

"My learned colleague suggests the evidence is merely circumstantial. But six independent pieces of circumstantial evidence, each pointing to the same conclusion, constitute a pattern — not a coincidence."

In academic argument

"While it's true that interdisciplinary projects show higher early-stage failure rates, those studies conflate failure to publish with failure to innovate — they are not the same metric."

Choose Your Motion

Select the motion you'll argue. You don't choose your side — the more interesting challenge is to argue whichever side you're assigned. Pick the motion that interests you most.

Motion A
"Social media platforms should be legally liable for the spread of medical misinformation on their networks."
Regulation · free speech · corporate responsibility
Motion B
"Governments should ban the use of artificial intelligence in any criminal justice decision-making."
AI ethics · bias · due process · innovation
Motion C
"All university students should be required to study at least one year in a country other than their own."
Education · equity · cultural exchange · access

Preparation: 3 Minutes

Use the time to build your argument using the 6 moves. Jot down your thinking — you'll speak from these notes, not read them.

3:00

Build checklist

ClaimState your position clearly. What exactly are you arguing?
Evidence2–3 specific examples, statistics, or real cases.
WarrantWhy does your evidence lead to your claim? Say it out loud.
QualifierUnder what conditions? For whom? In what context?
Steel ManWhat's the strongest argument against you? Address it.

Present Your Case: 3 Minutes

Speak your full argument. Use all six moves. Don't read — talk. Aim for structure, not perfection.

3:00
Language you might use "The argument I want to make is..." · "The evidence for this is..." · "The reason this matters is because..." · "To some extent..." · "One might argue against this by saying... however..." · "Even if we accept that..., the key point remains..."

Cross-Examination

Six challenges to your argument. They appear one at a time. You have 45 seconds per response. Don't retreat — defend, qualify, or concede precisely what needs to be conceded and no more.

Each challenge targets a specific weak point. Use the moves from the toolkit.

Challenge 1 of 6
"Your claim is too broad. Can you name three specific circumstances in which the opposite of your position would actually be true?"
0:45
Tests: Claim precisionQualifier
Challenge 2 of 6
"Your evidence is a single statistic. How do you respond to the possibility that it's an outlier, or that the studies you're citing had significant methodological flaws?"
0:45
Tests: Evidence qualityRebuttal
Challenge 3 of 6
"Even if everything you've said is true — why does it logically lead to your conclusion? What's the actual connection between your evidence and your claim?"
0:45
Tests: WarrantLogical structure
Challenge 4 of 6
"You haven't addressed the strongest counterargument. I'll put it to you now: [state the best opposing argument for the motion you chose]. Doesn't that fundamentally undermine your position?"
0:45
Tests: Steel ManRebuttal
Challenge 5 of 6
"Isn't your argument essentially a slippery slope? You assume one thing leads to another — but where exactly do you draw the line, and why there rather than somewhere else?"
0:45
Tests: Logical fallacy awarenessWarrant precision
Challenge 6 of 6 — Final question
"Let's say you're completely right and your position becomes policy. What are the two most significant unintended consequences — and how do you weigh those against the benefits you've argued for?"
0:45
Tests: QualifierSteel ManScope of argument

The Verdict

The trial is over. Now think about what happened in the room — not just what you said, but how you argued.

Which challenge was hardest to defend?

Name the specific challenge and explain why — was it the evidence, the warrant, the scope? What would you prepare differently next time?

1:30

Which of the 6 moves came naturally — and which felt forced?

Speak for 60 seconds. Be honest about where your argument was structurally weak.

1:00

Now switch sides.

Take the opposing position on your motion. You have 2 minutes to argue it with the same rigour. The strongest thinkers can argue both sides equally well.

2:00

Introducing a claim: "The argument I want to make is..." · "What I'm arguing is not X but specifically Y..." · "The position I'll defend is..."

Connecting evidence to claim: "The reason this matters is..." · "This is significant because..." · "The logical implication of this is..."

Qualifying: "In most contexts..." · "For the majority of cases..." · "This applies particularly when..." · "To the extent that..."

Steel-manning: "The strongest counterargument would be..." · "One might fairly object that..." · "To be precise about what I'm conceding..."

Rebuttals: "That argument misrepresents my position because..." · "Even if we accept that... it doesn't follow that..." · "The studies cited conflate X with Y — these are not the same."