debate research paper

How to Write a Good Debate Essay

When the word “debate” occurs in an essay title, you are being asked to examine a subject in which there are opposing views. The aim is that your essay will lead to support for one side, based on clear argument, effective judgement and justification for the decisions presented and arguments presented. The foundation of a good debate essay is effectively completing research combined with being able to refer to facts and credible information. The biggest challenge is to remain unemotional, whilst still persuading your audience of the validity of the arguments you are making in support of your chosen side.

Writing your debate essay

Introduction.

Your introduction should ensure that your reader understands what topic is being debated and encourage them to read more. One effective way to start is with a question, which sets the stage for you to state your position on the subject (your thesis statement). For example, “Does online learning creates laziness in students?”.

The aim is that your readers will have an immediate answer to the question, and this then drives the arguments you are presenting. An alternative approach is to refute a statement, framing the subject negatively, for example, “There are studies which suggest online learning creates laziness, however, studies have shown that online learning actually increases motivation”. In this case you are encouraging the reader to support your argument. In both cases, you have set a foundation with your introduction which needs to be built on by effective arguments and evidence.

The body text of your debate essay should be separated into paragraphs, each one of which will cover a different reason / rationale for the viewpoint you set out in your introduction. For each point you should provide back-up information from credible sources, which demonstrates that you have evaluated evidence before drawing a conclusion and opinion. Each paragraph should introduce your argument for or against, depending on your perspective, and include where appropriate, statistical evidence, illustrative data and clearly referenced sources. A good tip with a debate essay is to also present the counterargument for your point and refute it with viable sources to demonstrate why it is incorrect, demonstrating your understanding of the subject. The structure of the body text should be logical, moving from one argument to another with effective connections such as “Furthermore”, “Notwithstanding”, “Moreover” or similar to ensure coherence of argument.

The conclusion to your debate essay should be a summing up of all the positive points you have made, reaffirming your stance on the issue and should refer back to your thesis statement or original question. This enables you to demonstrate that you have effectively provided a strong justification for your point of view and in so doing, persuaded the reader of the accuracy of your perspective and opinion.

Key Words for a Debate Essay

• In the same way
• On the other hand
• Nevertheless
• On the contrary
• Subsequently
• Specifically
• Furthermore
• In consequence

Tips For Writing A Debate Essay

An argumentative paper depends on various aspects that can either build the conversation or break it. Here is how to write a debate essay step by step and get your point through in a convincing manner:

• Choose the topic wisely. Make sure it is a controversial topic that can have a debate both ways. You can pick any topic from child education to medicinal marijuana. The topic itself needs to have a compelling pull to keep the audience involved.
• Once the topic is decided, figure out which side you are on. For topics like domestic violence, most people will be against it, but you can still create an argument around it confidently.
• Make sure you have done your research to articulate the facts and stats which go both in favour and against the topic. Your opponents may have a different perspective than you, but if you have solid grounds that can prove your stance, you can make them agree with you.
• Know your audience. The readers of your essay will be very crucial to you building your argument. If you are writing a term paper, you may focus more on sentence building, structuring, and formatting. But if you are drafting for a competition, you need solid supporting research which can be cited and argued.
• Have your facts ready. Without figures and numbers, a paper loses credibility. It becomes more of an opinion-piece than a debate essay grounded in facts.
• The last, the most important factor. Select an issue you are most passionate about. If you feel strongly about it, you will be able to express your thoughts and also be able to research it with dedication.

Consider these tips combined when you think about how to make a debate essay convincing and interesting. Don’t forget, your opponent may not agree at all with your verdict, but at least you would present your vision with strong arguments and leave a good impression on the readers.

Debate Topics

Need to write an argumentative essay? Preparing for an upcoming debate? ProCon.org has over 100 topics complete with pro and con arguments, quotes and statistics from experts, historical information, and other pertinent research.

Abortion – Should abortion be legal?

Alternative Energy – Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?

American Socialism – Should the U.S. become socialist?

Animal Dissection – Should K-12 students dissect animals in science classrooms?

Animal Testing – Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Artificial Intelligence – Is artificial intelligence good for society?

Banned Books – Should parents or other adults be able to ban books from schools and libraries?

Binge-Watching – Is binge-watching good for you?

Cancel Culture – Is cancel culture (or callout culture) good for society?

CBD for Pets – Is CBD good for pets?

Cell Phone Radiation – Is cell phone radiation safe?

Cheerleading – Is cheerleading a sport?

Churches & Taxes – Should churches (including mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?

College Education – Is a college education worth it?

Congressional Term Limits  – Should term limits be imposed on U.S. Senators and Representatives?

Constitutional Carry of Handguns – Should permitless, “constitutional carry” of guns be legal?

Corporal Punishment – Should corporal punishment be used in K-12 schools?

Corporate Tax Rate – Should the federal corporate income tax rate be raised?

Cuba Embargo – Should the United States maintain its embargo against Cuba?

DACA & Dreamers – Are DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and the DREAM Act good for America?

Daylight Saving Time – Should the United States keep daylight saving time?

DC AND Puerto Rico Statehood – Should Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico be granted U.S. statehood?

Death Penalty – Should the death penalty be legal?

Defund the Police – Should police departments be defunded, if not abolished?

Dress Codes – Should dress codes be implemented and enforced?

Drinking Age – Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?

Drone Strikes – Should the United States continue its use of drone strikes abroad?

Drug Use in Sports – Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?

Election Day National Holiday – Should the election day be made a national holiday?

Electoral College – Should the United States use the electoral college in presidential elections?

Employer Vaccine Mandates – Should employers be able to mandate vaccinations?

Felon Voting – Should people who have completed felony sentences be allowed to vote?

Fighting in Hockey – Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

Filibuster – Should the U.S. Senate keep the filibuster?

Fracking – Should the United States continue fracking

Free College – Should public college be tuition-free?

Fur Clothing Bans – Should fur clothing be banned?

GMOS – Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be grown?

Gold Standard – Should the United States return to a gold standard?

Golf – Is golf a sport and are golfers athletes?

Gun Control – Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Historic Statue Removal – Should historic statues be taken down?

Homework – Is homework beneficial?

Illegal Immigration – Should the U.S. government provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

Internet – Is the internet “making us stupid?”

Kneeling during the National Anthem – Is kneeling during the national anthem an appropriate form of protest?

Mandatory National Service – Should the United States have mandatory national service?

Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) – Should medical aid in dying be legal?

Medical Marijuana – Should medical marijuana be legal?

Milk – Should humans consume dairy milk?

Minimum Wage – Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

Net Neutrality – Should the U.S. have net neutrality laws?

Obesity – Is obesity a disease?

Olympics – Are the Olympic games an overall benefit for their host countries and cities?

OTC Birth Control Pills – Should birth control pills be available over-the-counter (OTC)?

Penny – Should the penny stay in circulation?

Pit Bull Bans – Should breed-specific legislation (“pit bull bans”) be enacted?

Pokémon – Is Pokémon Go good for our society?

Police Body Cameras – Should police officers wear body cameras?

Prescription Drug Costs – Should the U.S. federal government regulate prescription drug prices?

Presidential Election, 2024 – 2024 Presidential Election Site

Private Prisons – Should prisons be privatized?

Recreational Marijuana – Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Reparations for Slavery – Should the federal government pay reparations to the descendants of slaves?

Right to Healthcare – Should all Americans have the right (be entitled) to health care?

Sanctuary Cities – Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?

Santa Claus – Is there really a Santa Claus?

Saturday Halloween – Should Halloween be moved permanently to Saturday?

School Uniforms – Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Single-use Plastics Ban – Should single-use plastics be banned?

Social Media & Digital Addiction – Does social media spur digital addiction and other social ills?

Social Security Privatization – Should social security be privatized?

Space Colonization – Should humans colonize space?

Standardized Tests – Do standardized tests improve education in America?

Student Loan Debt – Should student loan debt be eliminated via forgiveness or bankruptcy?

TikTok Bans – Should TikTok be banned?

Uber & Lyft – Are ride-sharing companies a benefit to society?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) – Should the United States implement a universal basic income?

U.S. Supreme Court Packing – Should packing the U.S. Supreme Court ever be considered?

Vaccines for Kids – Should states be allowed to mandate vaccines for school attendance??

Vaping E-Cigarettes – Is vaping e-cigarettes safe?

Vegetarianism – Should people become vegetarian?

Video Games & Violence – Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Voting Age – Should the voting age be lowered to 16?

Voting Machines – Are electronic voting machines the best method for voting?

Zoos – Should zoos exist?

Archived Topics

Please note that ProCon no longer updates these debates.

ACLU – Is the ACLU good for America?

Big Three Bailout – Should the big three car manufacturers be bailed out by the U.S. government?

Born Gay – Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Climate Change – Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?

College Football Playoffs – Should college football replace the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) with a playoff system?

Dakota Access Pipeline – Should the Dakota Access Pipeline be completed?

D.A.R.E. – Is the D.A.R.E. program good for America’s kids (K-12)?

Gay Marriage – Should gay marriage be legal?

Congressional Insider Trading – Should insider trading by Congress be allowed?

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Obamacare – Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) good for America?

Paying College Athletes – Should colleges and universities pay college athletes?

President Bill Clinton – Was Bill Clinton a good president?

President Ronald Reagan – Was Ronald Reagan a good president?

Presidential Election, 2008 – Which candidate would make the best U.S. president?

Presidential Election, 2012 – Which candidate should be U.S. president in 2012?

Presidential Election, 2016 – The candidates and where they stand on the issues

Presidential Election, 2020 – 2020 Presidential Election Site

Prostitution – Should prostitution be legal?

School Vouchers – Should states have school voucher programs?

Tablets v. Textbooks -Should tablets replace textbooks in K-12 schools?

Teacher Tenure – Should teachers get tenure?

Under God in the Pledge – Should the words “under god” be in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance?

U.S. Drone Shot down by Iran – Was the U.S. drone shot down by Iran over international waters?

U.S.-Iraq War – Should the U.S. have attacked Iraq?

WTC Muslim Center – Is it appropriate to build a muslim community center (aka the ”ground zero mosque”) near the World Trade Center site?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 17 March 2021

An autonomous debating system

• Noam Slonim   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5171-8264 1 ,
• Yonatan Bilu 1 ,
• Carlos Alzate 2 ,
• Roy Bar-Haim 1 ,
• Ben Bogin 1 ,
• Francesca Bonin 2 ,
• Leshem Choshen 1 ,
• Edo Cohen-Karlik 1 ,
• Lena Dankin 1 ,
• Lilach Edelstein 1 ,
• Liat Ein-Dor 1 ,
• Roni Friedman-Melamed 1 ,
• Assaf Gavron 1 ,
• Ariel Gera 1 ,
• Martin Gleize 2 ,
• Shai Gretz 1 ,
• Dan Gutfreund 1 ,
• Alon Halfon 1 ,
• Daniel Hershcovich 1 ,
• Ron Hoory 1 ,
• Yufang Hou 2 ,
• Shay Hummel 1 ,
• Michal Jacovi 1 ,
• Charles Jochim 2 ,
• Yoav Kantor 1 ,
• Yoav Katz 1 ,
• David Konopnicki 1 ,
• Zvi Kons 1 ,
• Lili Kotlerman 1 ,
• Dalia Krieger 1 ,
• Dan Lahav 1 ,
• Tamar Lavee 1 ,
• Ran Levy 1 ,
• Naftali Liberman 1 ,
• Yosi Mass 1 ,
• Amir Menczel 1 ,
• Shachar Mirkin 1 ,
• Guy Moshkowich 1 ,
• Shila Ofek-Koifman 1 ,
• Matan Orbach 1 ,
• Ella Rabinovich 1 ,
• Ruty Rinott 1 ,
• Slava Shechtman 1 ,
• Dafna Sheinwald 1 ,
• Eyal Shnarch 1 ,
• Ilya Shnayderman 1 ,
• Aya Soffer 1 ,
• Artem Spector 1 ,
• Benjamin Sznajder 1 ,
• Assaf Toledo 1 ,
• Orith Toledo-Ronen 1 ,
• Elad Venezian 1 &
• Ranit Aharonov 1  

Nature volume  591 ,  pages 379–384 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

18k Accesses

75 Citations

394 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computational science
• Computer science

Artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as the ability of machines to perform tasks that are usually associated with intelligent beings. Argument and debate are fundamental capabilities of human intelligence, essential for a wide range of human activities, and common to all human societies. The development of computational argumentation technologies is therefore an important emerging discipline in AI research 1 . Here we present Project Debater, an autonomous debating system that can engage in a competitive debate with humans. We provide a complete description of the system’s architecture, a thorough and systematic evaluation of its operation across a wide range of debate topics, and a detailed account of the system’s performance in its public debut against three expert human debaters. We also highlight the fundamental differences between debating with humans as opposed to challenging humans in game competitions, the latter being the focus of classical ‘grand challenges’ pursued by the AI research community over the past few decades. We suggest that such challenges lie in the ‘comfort zone’ of AI, whereas debating with humans lies in a different territory, in which humans still prevail, and for which novel paradigms are required to make substantial progress.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Negotiation and honesty in artificial intelligence methods for the board game of Diplomacy

Understanding the dilemma of explainable artificial intelligence: a proposal for a ritual dialog framework

Bad machines corrupt good morals

Data availability.

The full transcripts of the three public debates in which Project Debater participated are available in Supplementary Information section  11 , including information that elucidates the system’s operation throughout, and the results of the audience votes. In addition, multiple datasets that were constructed and used while developing Project Debater are available at https://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/vst/debating_data.shtml . Source data are provided with this paper for Fig. 3 .  Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Most of the underlying capabilities of Project Debater, including the argument mining components, are freely available for academic research upon request as cloud services via https://early-access-program.debater.res.ibm.com/academic_use (in which the terminology differs: what we call here ‘motion’ and ‘topic’ is denoted as ‘topic’ and ‘concept’, respectively.).

Lawrence, J. & Reed, C. Argument mining: a survey. Comput. Linguist . 45 , 765–818 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K. & Toutanova, K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 (2018).

Peters, M. et al. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proc. 2018 Conf. North Am. Ch. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies Vol. 1, 2227–2237 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N18–1202

Radford, A. et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 1 , http://www.persagen.com/files/misc/radford2019language.pdf (2019).

Socher, R. et al. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proc. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) 1631–1642 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2013).

Yang, Z. et al. XLNet: generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. In Adv. in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 5753−5763 (Curran Associates,2019).

Cho, K., van Merriënboer, B., Bahdanau, D. & Bengio, Y. On the properties of neural machine translation: encoder–decoder approaches. In Proc. 8th Worksh. on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation 103−111 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014).

Gambhir, M. & Gupta, V. Recent automatic text summarization techniques: a survey. Artif. Intell. Rev . 47 , 1–66 (2017).

Young, S., Gašić, M., Thomson, B. & Williams, J. POMDP-based statistical spoken dialog systems: A review. Proc. IEEE 101 , 1160–1179 (2013).

Gurevych, I., Hovy, E. H., Slonim, N. & Stein, B. Debating Technologies (Dagstuhl Seminar 15512) Dagstuhl Report 5 (2016).

Levy, R., Bilu, Y., Hershcovich, D., Aharoni, E. & Slonim, N. Context dependent claim detection. In Proc. COLING 2014, the 25th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers 1489–1500 (Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C14–1141

Rinott, R. et al. Show me your evidence—an automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In Proc. 2015 Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 440–450 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D15–1050

Shnayderman, I. et al. Fast end-to-end wikification. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06785 (2019).

Borthwick, A. A Maximum Entropy Approach To Named Entity Recognition . PhD thesis, New York Univ. https://cs.nyu.edu/media/publications/borthwick_andrew.pdf (1999).

Finkel, J. R., Grenager, T. & Manning, C. Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. In Proc. 43rd Ann. Meet. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics 363–370 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2005).

Levy, R., Bogin, B., Gretz, S., Aharonov, R. & Slonim, N. Towards an argumentative content search engine using weak supervision. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2018) 2066–2081, https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1176.pdf (International Committee on Computational Linguistics, 2018).

Ein-Dor, L. et al. Corpus wide argument mining—a working solution. In Proc. Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence 7683−7691 (AAAI Press, 2020).

Levy, R. et al. Unsupervised corpus-wide claim detection. In Proc. 4th Worksh. on Argument Mining 79–84 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17–5110

Shnarch, E. et al. Will it blend? Blending weak and strong labeled data in a neural network for argumentation mining. In Proc. 56th Ann. Meet. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics Vol. 2, 599–605 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P18–2095

Gleize, M. et al. Are you convinced? Choosing the more convincing evidence with a Siamese network. In Proc. 57th Conf. Assoc. for Computational Linguistic , 967–976 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Bar-Haim, R., Bhattacharya, I., Dinuzzo, F., Saha, A. & Slonim, N. Stance classification of context-dependent claims. In Proc. 15th Conf. Eur. Ch. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics Vol. 1, 251–261 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017).

Bar-Haim, R., Edelstein, L., Jochim, C. & Slonim, N. Improving claim stance classification with lexical knowledge expansion and context utilization. In Proc. 4th Worksh. on Argument Mining 32–38 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017).

Bar-Haim, R. et al. From surrogacy to adoption; from bitcoin to cryptocurrency: debate topic expansion. In Proc. 57th Conf. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics 977–990 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Bilu, Y. et al. Argument invention from first principles. In Proc. 57th Ann. Meet. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics 1013–1026 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Ein-Dor, L. et al. Semantic relatedness of Wikipedia concepts—benchmark data and a working solution. In Proc. Eleventh Int. Conf. on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018) 2571−2575 (Springer, 2018).

Pahuja, V. et al. Joint learning of correlated sequence labelling tasks using bidirectional recurrent neural networks. In Proc. Interspeech 548−552 (International Speech Communication Association, 2017).

Mirkin, S. et al. Listening comprehension over argumentative content. In Proc. 2018 Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 719–724 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018).

Lavee, T. et al. Listening for claims: listening comprehension using corpus-wide claim mining. In ArgMining Worksh . 58−66 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Orbach, M. et al. A dataset of general-purpose rebuttal. In Proc. 2019 Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 5595−5605 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019).

Slonim, N., Atwal, G. S., Tkačik, G. & Bialek, W. Information-based clustering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 18297–18302 (2005).

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ein Dor, L. et al. Learning thematic similarity metric from article sections using triplet networks. In Proc. 56th Ann. Meet. Assoc. for Computational Linguistics Vol. 2, 49–54 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018); https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P18–2009

Shechtman, S. & Mordechay, M. Emphatic speech prosody prediction with deep Lstm networks. In 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) 5119–5123 (IEEE, 2018).

Mass, Y. et al. Word emphasis prediction for expressive text to speech. In Interspeech 2868–2872 (International Speech Communication Association, 2018).

Feigenblat, G., Roitman, H., Boni, O. & Konopnicki, D. Unsupervised query-focused multi-document summarization using the cross entropy method. In Proc. 40th Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 961–964 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2017).

Daxenberger, J., Schiller, B., Stahlhut, C., Kaiser, E. & Gurevych, I. Argumentext: argument classification and clustering in a generalized search scenario. Datenbank-Spektrum 20 , 115–121 (2020).

Gretz, S. et al. A large-scale dataset for argument quality ranking: construction and analysis. In Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence 7805–7813 (AAAI Press, 2020); https://aaai.org/ojs/index.php/AAAI/article/view/6285

Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning (MIT Press, 2016).

Samuel, A. L. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J. Res. Develop . 3 , 210–229 (1959).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Tesauro, G. TD-Gammon, a self-teaching backgammon program, achieves master-level play. Neural Comput . 6 , 215–219 (1994).

Campbell, M., Hoane, A. J., Jr & Hsu, F.-h. Deep Blue. Artif. Intell . 134 , 57–83 (2002).

Ferrucci, D. A. Introduction to “This is Watson”. IBM J. Res. Dev . 56 , 235–249 (2012).

Silver, D. et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and Go through self-play. Science 362 , 1140–1144 (2018).

Coulom, R. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in Monte-Carlo tree search. In 5th Int. Conf. on Computers and Games inria-0011699 (Springer, 2006).

Vinyals, O. et al. Grandmaster level in Starcraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning. Nature 575 , 350–354 (2019).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Aharoni, D. Carmel, S. Fine, M. Levinger, and L. Haas for invaluable help during the early stages of this work. We thank A. Aaron and R. Fernandez for help in developing the Project Debater voice; P. Levin-Slesarev for work on the figures; G. Feigenblat and J. Daxenberger for help in generating baseline results; Y. Katsis for comments on the draft; N. Ovadia, D. Zafrir and H. Natarajan for their sportsmanship; and I. Dagan, I. Gurevych, C. Reed, B. Stein, H. Wachsmuth and U. Zakai for many discussions. We are indebted to the in-house annotators and in-house debaters, and especially to A. Polnarov and H. Goldlist-Eichler, who worked on this project over the years. Finally, we thank the additional researchers and managers from the Haifa, Dublin, India and Yorktown IBM Research labs who contributed to this project over the years, and especially to J. E. Kelly, A. Krishna, D. Gil and the IBM communications team, Epic Digital and Intelligence Squared for their support and ideas.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IBM Research AI, Haifa, Israel

Noam Slonim, Yonatan Bilu, Roy Bar-Haim, Ben Bogin, Leshem Choshen, Edo Cohen-Karlik, Lena Dankin, Lilach Edelstein, Liat Ein-Dor, Roni Friedman-Melamed, Assaf Gavron, Ariel Gera, Shai Gretz, Dan Gutfreund, Alon Halfon, Daniel Hershcovich, Ron Hoory, Shay Hummel, Michal Jacovi, Yoav Kantor, Yoav Katz, David Konopnicki, Zvi Kons, Lili Kotlerman, Dalia Krieger, Dan Lahav, Tamar Lavee, Ran Levy, Naftali Liberman, Yosi Mass, Amir Menczel, Shachar Mirkin, Guy Moshkowich, Shila Ofek-Koifman, Matan Orbach, Ella Rabinovich, Ruty Rinott, Slava Shechtman, Dafna Sheinwald, Eyal Shnarch, Ilya Shnayderman, Aya Soffer, Artem Spector, Benjamin Sznajder, Assaf Toledo, Orith Toledo-Ronen, Elad Venezian & Ranit Aharonov

IBM Research AI, Dublin, Ireland

Carlos Alzate, Francesca Bonin, Martin Gleize, Yufang Hou & Charles Jochim

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

N.S. conceived the idea of Project Debater. N.S., Y.B., C.A., R.B.-H., B.B., F.B., L.C., E.C.-K., L.D., L.E., L.E.-D, R.F.-M, A. Gavron, A. Gera., M.G., S.G., D.G., A.H., D.H., R.H., Y.H., S.H., M.J., C.J., Y. Kantor, Y. Katz, D. Konopnicki, Z.K., L.K., D. Krieger, D.L., T.L., R.L., N.L., Y.M., A.M., S.M., G.M., M.O., E.R., R.R., S.S., D.S., E.S., I.S., A. Spector, B.S., A.T., O.T.-R., E.V. and R.A. designed and built Project Debater, with guidance from S.O.-K. and A. Soffer. N.S., Y.B., R.F.-M, and R.A. designed the evaluation framework. N.S., Y.B., and R.A. wrote the paper, with contribution from A. Gera to the In Depth Analysis section. N.S., Y.B., R.B.-H., L.C., L.D., L.E.-D., A. Gera, R.F.-M., S.G., C.J., Y. Kantor, D.L., G.M., M.O., E.S., A.T., E.V. and R.A. wrote the Supplementary Information. Y. Katz led the software engineering of the project. N.S. and R.A. led the team, with D.G. co-leading during the early stages of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noam Slonim .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Claire Cardie and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

This file contains Supplementary Information Sections 1-11, including Supplementary Tables 1-3, Supplementary Figures 1-6 and Supplementary References – see contents pages for details.

This file contains additional information, including: query_sentiment_lexicon - a lexicon of sentiment words, used as a building block to create queries for sentence retrieval in the claim detection and evidence detection components; action_verb_expansions - a mapping between common action verbs and their syntactic and semantic expansions; claim_verb_phrases - a list of verb phrases commonly found in sentences containing claims; contrastive_expressions - a lexicon of expressions indicating contrast and study_conclusions - a list of phrases (unigrams to 5-grams) that frequently appear in reports of study results and conclusions.

Peer Review File

Source data, source data fig. 3, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Slonim, N., Bilu, Y., Alzate, C. et al. An autonomous debating system. Nature 591 , 379–384 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w

Download citation

Received : 19 May 2020

Accepted : 08 January 2021

Published : 17 March 2021

Issue Date : 18 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03215-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Effects of demonstrating consensus between robots to change user’s opinion.

• Kazuki Sakai
• Koh Mitsuda
• Hiroshi Ishiguro

International Journal of Social Robotics (2024)

Argumentation effect of a chatbot for ethical discussions about autonomous AI scenarios

• Christian Hauptmann
• Adrian Krenzer
• Frank Puppe

Knowledge and Information Systems (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Using Oral Debates to Find an Argument

Rebecca lorimer (english 201).

When student writers struggle to write argument-driven—rather than report-driven—research papers, it is often because they misunderstand the difference between a research topic and a research argument . In order to help students move from topics to arguments, I stage in-class debates with students before the research writing begins.

My goals for conducting an in-class debate are to help students

• Find a research topic that is relevant to the course
• Narrow down the topic so it is specific enough to be researched
• Find an argument about that specific topic
• Practice using persuasion

I lead students through the following steps to prepare for and carry out the debates. These usually occur over the course of two class meetings, but could easily be abbreviated for one class or extended to multiple meetings for more in-depth debate.

• Watch a clip of a debate . You can find debate clips easily on YouTube. I’ve often used Jon Stewart’s appearance on the now-defunct CNN show Crossfire to great success. Watching a debate elicits students’ thinking about what successful persuasion looks like. After we watch the clip I ask students:

            Who did you find more persuasive? Why?

            How would you characterize the success of this debate? What was accomplished?

• Set parameters for a successful debate . Through the conversation above, the students and I come to an agreement about what will constitute a successful debate in our class. This usually includes the following:

Civilized discourse—genuine listening, acknowledging what other side has just argued

Honest arguments—claims are reasonable and logical, use evidence for support

Changed minds—arguments that “win” persuade a listener of something they were disinclined to believe

No attacks or outbursts—speakers appeal to emotions, but not to the sacrifice of their ethos

• Explain debate format . Formats are very flexible, but this loose structure has worked in the past: each debate side gives a two-minute speech that presents their arguments; both sides debate for six minutes. The audience asks questions for five minutes and then writes for five minutes about who has been more successful in the debate.
• In-class preparation work . Depending on how much time is available during a class meeting, you can assign groups, debate roles, and topics, or else let students choose all of these. When I have time to let students choose, I do the following:

      Ask students to write down one debatable topic relevant to the course and write it on the board.

                 -As a class we decide if it is indeed debatable or not. (Do people disagree on this topic?)

      Assign students to small groups and let them choose the topic from the board they’d like to debate.

                 -Students decide who will be on which side of the debate.

      Have students choose roles: Who will give the speech and who will present which claims?

• Out-of-class preparation work . Students research their topic in course material and outside reading. They email each other support they’ve found and write notes. Whoever will give the speech writes their two-minute speech.
• Students debate . Groups move to the front of the class to carry out their debates according to the format above. The rest of the class acts as an audience, writing down at least one question for the debate group as they listen. The audience asks questions for five minutes and then everyone writes for five minutes, answering the following questions:

Which side did you find most persuasive and why?

What was their topic and argument?

What was your view on the topic before the debate and what is your view now?

I read students’ responses to these questions and tally which arguments the class found most convincing—these groups get the pleasure of a “win.” But the exercise is intended most of all to accomplish the goals stated above. Student responses show me whether or not they understand the difference between topics and arguments and whether or not they can describe persuasive techniques. Some students end up writing their papers with their debate argument or other arguments they saw presented by other groups. Other students research an entirely new topic but follow the process practiced in the debate.

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

Presidential debates and their effects: Research roundup

2016 updated literature review of political science insights on American presidential debates and their effects.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway and John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource September 20, 2016

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The news media often anticipate televised presidential debates as a national event of great importance — a kind of Super Bowl of American democracy. But political scientists have noted that, in contrast to the party conventions, the general election debates do not typically have dramatic effects on voters.

To the extent that the debates are important in terms of persuasion, the format may slightly favor the challenger, about whom the public knows less. The classic example cited is John F. Kennedy (though research from political scientist Sydney Kraus confirms the proverbial notion that he won over the television audience but not the radio listenership). Moreover, gaffes can potentially hurt candidates, as with Gerald Ford’s faulty knowledge of Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush’s looking at his watch and Al Gore’s audible sighing.

Though reporters often look for a winner and loser, viewers experience the debate differently, making two simultaneous judgments: One, whether or not the candidate seems “big enough” to be president; and two, whether one of the candidates is a better choice.

As political scientist Thomas Holbrook has pointed out, the earlier debates are more powerful in terms of voters’ learning about candidates. In his study “Political Learning from Presidential Debates,” Holbrook states: “The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the most important debate, at least in terms of information acquisition, is the first debate … The first debate is held at a time when voters have less information at their disposal and a larger share of voters are likely to be undecided.”

Reflecting on the Obama-McCain race of 2008, scholars Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Jeffrey A. Gottfried note that in a “transformed media environment” — where traditional news has ceded ground to non-mainstream media sources — the televised debates continued to play a unique role, as they have through history. “For almost five decades, studies have confirmed the power of presidential debates to increase voter knowledge, and 2008 was no exception,” they write. “The debates’ two-sided clash of competing ideas, unmediated by interpretation from reporters, spiked voter knowledge. In these often disparaged encounters, the presidential and vice presidential nominees took on the deceptions perpetrated by the other side, including those on health care and taxing proposals.”

One noteworthy area of potential impact of the debates is their capacity for what political scientists call “agenda setting”: The salience of a given policy or campaign issue in the public mind can rise as a result, and this may play to the strength or weakness of a particular campaign.

As the Pew Research Center has consistently found through the years, nearly two-thirds of voters often say the debates were “very” or “somewhat” helpful in decision-making, while voters say the candidates’ commercials were not helpful. However, some scholars think that, when asked about the influence of debates, citizens are predisposed to assign them outsized significance — they conform to ideas of rational deliberation — and to downplay the power of negative ads and other such opinion-shaping communications.

In any case, the 2008 book  Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV , by Alan Schroeder of Northeastern, as well as the 2012 book The Timeline of Presidential Campaigns: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter , by Robert Erikson of Columbia and Christopher Wlezien of Temple, shed light on these and related issues.

Below is a mix of academic studies that provide diverse insights about debates. For more recent research, please also check out our newest piece focusing on the issue, “US presidential debates: 3 studies journalists should know about.”

Special thanks to political scientists Thomas Patterson  of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center , Marion Just of Wellesley College/Shorenstein and John Sides of George Washington University for their input on this overview.

“Presidential Debates: What’s Behind the Numbers?” Holz, Jo; Akin, Heather; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. White Paper of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, September 2016.

Summary: While the number of households watching presidential and vice-presidential debates has grown substantially since 1960, the proportion of participating households has dropped. This white paper takes a close look at debate viewership, including why audiences watch debates, the changing demographics of viewership and alternate ways to measure viewership. Among the key takeaways from the report: Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said that presidential debates were more helpful in helping them decide how to vote than news coverage of the campaign, political talk shows, campaign rallies, campaign advertising spots and watching broadcast interviews with the candidates.

“On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates” Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication , 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233.

Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.”

“The Effects of HDTV on Perceptions of Obama and McCain in a 2008 Presidential Debate” Bos, Angela, L.; van Doorn, Bas W.; Smanik, Abbey C. Communication Research Reports , 2012, Vol. 29, Issue 2. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.666769.

Abstract: “As high-definition television (HDTV) becomes more prevalent, it may affect how people perceive politicians. This study experimentally tests the effects of HD on people’s perceptions of John McCain and Barack Obama during their second presidential debate, hypothesizing that the HD format will hurt McCain. Consistent with the authors’ expectations, it was found that the HD format negatively influenced global evaluations toward McCain. In addition, HDTV viewers free-listed more negative responses to McCain, including several pertaining to his age. This report discusses why these findings were observed, and implications for candidate strategy and the study of media effects are discussed.”

“Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates in 2008: A Profile of Audience Composition” Kenski, Kate; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. American Behavioral Scientist , 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 307-324. doi: 10.1177/0002764210392166.

Abstract: “In this study, the authors examine the composition of the audiences for the presidential and vice presidential debates in 2008. Results from the 2008 National Annenberg Election Survey show that the size of the vice presidential debate-viewing audience in 2008 exceeded the sizes of the presidential debate-viewing audiences, which is atypical from prior campaign seasons. The same general demographic and political characteristics that have driven political debate viewing in the past were operative during the 2008 presidential and vice presidential debate season, with debate viewing by Blacks being a notable exception. Contrary to our predictions, females were not more likely than males to watch the vice presidential debate. Debate watching was significantly associated with the favorability ratings of the candidates on the Democratic ticket, but it was not associated with the ratings of the Republican nominees.”

“Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates” Fein, Steven Fein; Goethals, George R.; Kugler, Matthew. Political Psychology , April 2007, Vol. 28, Issue 2.

Abstract: “Four experiments investigated the extent to which judgments of candidate performance in presidential debates could be influenced by the mere knowledge of others’ reactions. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants watched an intact version of a debate or an edited version in which either ‘soundbite’ one-liners or the audience reaction to those soundbites were removed. In Experiment 3 participants saw what was supposedly the reaction of their fellow participants on screen during the debate. Participants in Experiment 4 were exposed to the reactions of live confederates as they watched the last debate of an active presidential campaign. In all studies, audience reactions produced large shifts in participants’ judgments of performance. The results illustrate the power of social context to strongly influence individuals’ judgments of even large amounts of relevant, important information, and they support the categorization of presidential debates as ambiguous stimuli, fertile ground for informational social influence.”

“Social Influence in Televised Election Debates: A Potential Distortion of Democracy” Davis, C.J.; Bowers, J.S.; Memon A. PLoS ONE , March 2011, Vol. 6, Issue 3, e18154. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018154.

Findings: The researchers examine the results of an experiment performed on a random sample of 150 undecided voters the night of the final United Kingdom election debate. The participants were divided into two groups and shown the live debate featuring on-screen graphical “worms” — the real-time visual display of a rising and falling line that responds to audience reactions– that were manipulated by the researchers. One worm favored the incumbent, Gordon Brown, while the other favored Nick Clegg. The third debate participant, David Cameron, was favored by neither worm. Nearly half the participants in the group with the Brown-biased worm (47%) said he won the debate, while 35% and 13% reported that Clegg and Cameron won, respectively. More than three-quarters of the group with the Clegg-biased worm (79%) said he won the debate, compared to 9% and 4% for Brown and Cameron, respectively. These numbers indicate that the groups chose winners “consistent with the bias of the worm that they viewed.” Cameron’s perceived performance in the experiment was much lower than that for the public at large — in a survey, the majority of the U.K. population felt that he won the debate. “His poor performance here is consistent with the fact that the worm was biased against him in both groups.” The proportion of participants who said that they were undecided decreased from around 33% before the debate to 10% after the debate: “Most of these undecided voters were swayed in the direction of the worm.”

“Not Your Parents’ Presidential Debates: Examining the Effects of the CNN/YouTube Debates on Young Citizens’ Civic Engagement” McKinney, Mitchell S.; Rill, Leslie A. Communication Studies , 2009, Vol. 60, Issue 4. doi: 10.1080/10510970903110001.

Abstract: “During the 2007-2008 U.S. presidential primaries, CNN partnered with YouTube to create the first nationally televised presidential debates where citizens interrogated the candidates via video questions posted to the Internet. The creators of these debates claimed their novel use of Internet technology “would change the face of presidential candidate debates.” The CNN/ YouTube debates were designed expressly to engage citizens in the campaign dialogue, and specifically to engage young citizens who are frequent users of YouTube yet not always among the viewing audience for a televised presidential debate. The current study examines the effects of viewing the CNN/YouTube debates, and particularly the debates’ influence on young citizens’ ‘normative’ democratic attitudes. Building on previous research designed to test differences in debate formats, this study compares young citizens’ reactions to the CNN/ YouTube debates and also to a more traditional presidential debate with candidate questioning controlled by a journalist. Results suggest that while exposure to candidate debates in general yields positive effects on young citizens’ normative democratic attitudes, there was very little difference found in the effects of exposure to the CNN/YouTube debates when compared to a traditional journalist-controlled presidential debate.”

“Will the ‘Real’ Candidates for President and Vice President Please Stand Up? 2008 Pre- and Post-Debate Viewer Perceptions of Candidate Image” Warner, Benjamin R. American Behavioral Scientist, March 2011, Vol. 55, No. 3, 232-252 . doi: 10.1177/0002764210392160.

Abstract: “This study of the 2008 first presidential and vice presidential debate builds on past research on viewers’ perceptions of candidate images. Going back to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, image research has been conducted in most presidential election cycles. Findings consistently show that viewers enter the debates with perceptions of candidates’ character and leadership qualities and that the debates tend to reinforce rather than change images unless the viewers are undecided or not well informed about a candidate. The results of the 2008 study confirmed trends from past research but also provided some surprises in that most changes in image perception were for senator Joe Biden, the longest-serving public official in the race. The study concludes that media often assume knowledge about candidates that might not exist and that in the 2008 match-ups, the debates did not provide the “game changer” that the McCain-Palin ticket needed to overcome a growing movement toward the Obama-Biden ticket that began shortly before the first debate.”

“The Effect of Fox News and CNN’s Post-debate Commentator Analysis on Viewers’ Perceptions of Presidential Candidate Performance” Brubaker, Jennifer; Hanson, Gary. Southern Communication Journal , 2009, Vol. 74, Issue 4. doi: 10.1080/10417940902721763.

Abstract: “Television news coverage following a presidential debate often presents the debate as a contest between winners and losers by employing a horse race paradigm. The use of this paradigm can help viewers form their assessments of the candidates’ performances, but its overuse can limit serious campaign discourse on the issues. This study examines the effect of post-debate analysis by two cable news networks on the perceived outcome of a 2004 presidential debate and the perceptions of the candidates, finding perceptions of the outcome differing between viewers of the two networks. This finding contributes to our understanding of viewer interaction with post-debate television coverage by focusing on the importance of the sources of information.”

“A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Viewing U.S. Presidential Debates” Benoit, William L.; Hansen, Glenn J.; Verser, Rebecca M. Communication Monographs , 2003, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 335-350. doi : 10.1080/0363775032000179133.

Abstract: “Televised debates are now an expected component of the American presidential election campaign. A meta-analysis was used to cumulate the research on the effects of watching presidential debates. General campaign debates increase issue knowledge and issue salience (the number of issues a voter uses to evaluate candidates) and can change preference for candidates’ issue stands. Debates can have an agenda-setting effect. Debates can alter perceptions of the candidates’ personality, but they do not exert a significant effect on perceptions of the candidates’ competence (leadership ability). Debates can affect vote preference. Primary debates increase issue knowledge, influence perceptions of candidates’ character, and can alter voter preferences (the effect sizes for these variables are larger in primary than general debates). The effect sizes for the dependent variables with significant effects were heterogeneous (except for effects of debates other than the first on vote preference). No support was found for several possible moderator variables on issue knowledge, character perceptions, candidate competence, and vote preference: nature of subject pool (students, nonstudents), study design (pretest/posttest, viewers/nonviewers), number of days between debate and election, or data collection method (public opinion poll or experimenter data). The first debate in a series had a larger effect on vote preference than other debates, but was not a moderator for other dependent variables. The possibility that other moderator variables are at work cannot be rejected.”

“Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy” Hillygus, Sunshine D.; Jackman, Simon. American Journal of Political Science , 2003, Vol. 47, No. 4, 583-596. doi: 10.1111/1540-5907.00041.

“Disentangling Media Effects from Debate Effects: The Presentation Mode of Televised Debates and Viewer Decision Making” Cho, Jaeho. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 2009, Vol. 86, No. 2, 383-400. doi: 10.1177/107769900908600208.

Abstract: “This experiment examines whether the presentation mode of televised debates impacts how viewers assess the issues debated. Participants were exposed to a segment of televised debate on either a single- or split-screen. Candidate character and party attachment were more important in how viewers formed opinions of the debated issue with the split-screen than with the single-screen. On the other hand, in the split-screen condition, viewers relied less on pre-existing notions when forming opinions of the debated issue than they did with the single-screen condition. Such modality effects were particularly pronounced for those with low-levels of political attentiveness.”

“Issue Knowledge and Perceptions of Agreement in the 2004 Presidential General Election” Kenski, Kate; Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Presidential Studies Quarterly , June 2006, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 243-259. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2006.00301.x.

Abstract: “Using post-election data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey, this study finds that compared to the 2000 election, candidate issue knowledge was relatively high by the end of the 2004 general election. It argues that just as in 2000, voters’ mistakes in matching presidential candidates with their issue positions benefited Republican incumbent George W. Bush more than Democratic challenger John Kerry. Perceived agreement with Bush exceeded actual agreement on four issues tested. Taking six demographic variables, party identification, and ideology into consideration, knowledge about the candidates’ issue positions mattered, as more informed respondents preferred Kerry to Bush. On the three issue knowledge items on which citizens performed the worst, content analyses indicate that citizens could have learned about the candidates’ positions from the debates as well as press coverage. We offer a number of explanations for these incorrect answers.”

“Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance” Lenz, Gabriel S.; Lawson, Chappell. American Journal of Political Science , 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00511.x.

Findings: In gubernatorial races, a voter who watches more television places slightly more importance (7%) on a candidate’s appearance than the typical voter. Among these higher-intensity viewers, those identified as “low-knowledge” voters were 11% more likely to judge a gubernatorial candidate by his or her appearance. A similar effect was seen in Senate races during the same period, with 16% of “low-knowledge,” higher-intensity TV viewing voters more likely to judge a candidate based on appearance. Put simply, “Candidate appearance matters more … when less-informed individuals watch a good deal of television.” Low-information voters are 10% more likely than their high-information counterparts to judge a candidate’s abilities on his or her looks; low-information, higher-intensity TV viewing voters are 32% more likely to judge a candidate by appearance. In summary, “Among low-knowledge individuals (bottom quartile), a 10 percentage point increase in their appearance advantage leads to only a 0.8 percentage point increase in vote share among those who watch little or no television, a 2 percentage point increase among those with average TV viewing, and a 4.8 percentage point increase among those who watch the most TV. Since 10 percentage point differences in appearance advantage are common, as one standard deviation is 20, the effect is considerable.” There is no appreciable difference between high-information voters who don’t watch much TV and those who do: “Television fails to exacerbate the appearance effect among more knowledgeable individuals.”

Keywords: research roundup, presidency, polarization, campaign issues, viewership, audience

About the Authors

Denise-Marie Ordway

John Wihbey

• Mar 24, 2021

How Should I Research for Debate?

The best debaters are often the best researchers, simply due to the fact that if you find strong evidence yourself, you are far more likely to understand how to use it strategically in the round than if it was sent to you by someone else.

Like all things in debate, strong research skills are built with practice, but we at Debate Resource would like to give you a head start by helping you understand how to effectively use Google and how to effectively read studies. The tips and tricks provided in this article will give you a leg up as a researcher and help you find killer evidence.

Research goals:

To start, we will go over a debater’s goals when researching. We believe that all debate research boils down to five main objectives:

Objective 1: Stockpile evidence in favor of the argument in question

Whenever you find evidence that seems promising, save it! At the beginning, as we have said before, you are just looking for quantity: get good quotes and links into your documents. Later on, you will want to comb through these articles and studies to figure out exactly what they say, but for now just find the evidence, organize it in an efficient way (tip: use hyperlinks! Ctrl+K), and keep researching!

Objective 2: Stockpile evidence against the argument in question

What happens when you find evidence that directly contradicts your argument? Don’t move backward by scrapping your argument altogether; instead, save that evidence to be used on the other side! All you need is to have your “PRO Research Document” and your “CON Research Document” up in 2 tabs, and paste your quotes and links into the applicable doc.

We promise - you will thank yourself later! It is much better to save too many links than to remember you had found that killer evidence early on but you forgot to save it and it’s lost forever.

Objective 3: Identify new warrants

Research isn’t all about finding quotes – it is also about building your topic knowledge and advancing your ability to use unique, nuanced warrants. Whenever you find an author that has a unique take, a link you’ve never heard of before that gets around the most common responses, write it down and use it as a basis for further research. It may even end up as one of the core links in your final case!

Objective 4: Identify new keywords for future research

Oftentimes, research comes down to using the right keywords. This is where jargon is VERY useful! If your topic is about nuclear weapons, you need to know that a keyword like “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or “WMDs” will give additional search results that the competition isn’t looking for. As you find more and more keywords related to the topic, keep writing them down and using them in future Google Searches.

Objective 5: Discover new arguments

Beside talking to your friends and family, reading articles and studies is the best way to discover new arguments and contentions you can use. As you find new arguments, keep writing them down and adding them to your list to research more later, and to find relevant keywords for. Keep building your documents with content – later, you will work on forming them into arguments and formatting them for simple and easy access in-round.

How To Use Google

Everyone who has grown up in the twenty-first century understands the basics of Google search. However, here are some tips that are lesser known that will help you cut through the noise and find the evidence you are actually looking for.

Tip #1 : Use Quotation Marks

Quotation marks are the most powerful tool in Google search and should be used often. When you put a word or phrase in quotes, Google requires every result that comes up to contain that word or phrase. In other words, it sets those words or phrases as highest-priority-keywords, helping you cut through the noise.

While putting individual words in quotation marks is powerful, the beauty of this is you can search for exact phrases. All results will contain that “long-tail keyword” allowing you to find exactly the content you are looking for.

Tip #2 : Time Search

If quotation marks are the most powerful tool Google allows, time search comes in a close second. What’s crazy about time search is almost nobody uses it! It’s very simple to set up a custom date range.

First, enter your search. In the next row under the search bar, you have a variety of options, where you can look for “all,” “news,” “images,” etc. Look all the way to the right, past “settings,” over to “tools.” You will see a drop-down that says “any time.” Click it and scroll all the way down to “custom range.” This is where you put in the precise date range you want your search to filter through.

Why use time search? Usually for 1 of 2 reasons.

First, you likely want to find the most recent articles. If your evidence “post-dates” your opponent’s and you can provide a feasible reason that recency matters with regard to that topic, that is a clear point for you in the judge’s book, and they are likely to trust your evidence over your opponent’s.

Second, you may want to understand an event that happened at a certain period in history, or better yet, how a certain period in history interpreted a certain event. We often suffer from “recency bias,” in which we let the most recent headlines crowd out a deeper, fuller understanding. Time search helps you get around that.

This will build the depth of your understanding. If you can not only explain a topic, but how our understanding of that topic has changed over time, your legitimacy will skyrocket and the judge will want to vote for you because you clearly did your homework.

Tip #3 : File Type PDF

Tired of finding articles from illegitimate sites at the top of your Google results? Enter the phrase filetype:pdf right into the google search bar after your search keywords. The results will be exclusively pdfs.

These pdfs are likely to be academic articles, or articles published by other well-known and legitimate websites. They will also be longer articles, with more content for you to browse and learn from.

Tip #4 : Minus Sign

The minus sign helps you if you keep encountering the same type of wrong result. If a word has multiple meanings and you keep getting stuck with results on the wrong one, you can minus a keyword relevant to that “wrong” interpretation to maximize your chances of getting the right results.

If your keyword is “nuclear” because you’re looking for results on nuclear war, but you keep getting results about nuclear energy, just minus out energy by including in the search bar: “-energy.” Simple as that.

The minus sign doesn’t need to be used too often, but can be powerful in the right circumstances to get the exact results you’re searching for.

Tip #5 : Hotkeys

Finally, we want to provide you with a list of hotkeys to make your Google search process more efficient. Here is a list of helpful hotkeys:

Ctrl F: Find within the page

Ctrl W: Exit Tab

Ctrl Shift T: Reopen most recent closed tab

The most important of these is Ctrl + F. If you aren’t using Ctrl + F multiple times a day to see if the content you really want is within the article you found, you’re probably wasting time.

To end this article, here is an easy step-by-step process to finding strong evidence quickly .

Step 1: Enter the keywords you are searching for into google

Step 2: Add quotation marks around multi-word keywords as well as necessary keywords that must be included in any article you want to read.

Step 3: Past or type “filetype:pdf” into the search bar too, and SEARCH

Step 4: Click on an article or study

Step 5: Use Crtl + F to find any relevant keywords within the study

Step 6: Paste relevant quotes with those keywords into your document and hyperlink the URL to the author name and organization, which you will write down as base text just before the quotation.

Step 7: Repeat!

That’s it, and good luck searchin!

Recent Posts

Ten Tips To Improve Your Crossfire Skills

What Questions Should I Ask To Win Crossfire?

How Should I Decide Which Debate Contentions to Use?

Essay Papers Writing Online

Learn the best strategies and tips on how to write an effective and persuasive debate essay for your academic success.

When it comes to expressing opinions, engaging in a debate can be an effective way to communicate and support your stance on a particular issue. A debate essay, or argumentative essay, allows you to showcase your critical thinking skills and present a well-reasoned argument. This type of essay requires careful planning and organization to effectively persuade your audience. By following a step-by-step approach, you can develop a strong debate essay that presents your point of view clearly and convincingly.

Before diving into the writing process, it’s essential to understand the purpose of a debate essay. The goal is not only to express your own opinion but also to address counterarguments and anticipate potential objections. Your aim is to convince your audience to understand and accept your perspective by presenting strong evidence and logical reasoning. To achieve this, you need to research and gather relevant information on the topic, evaluate different viewpoints, and outline a clear structure for your essay.

One of the key components of a successful debate essay is a strong thesis statement. This statement presents the main argument or claim that you will be defending throughout your essay. It should be clear, concise, and impactful. Your thesis statement should express your position on the topic and provide a preview of the main points you will be discussing. A well-crafted thesis statement sets the tone for your essay and helps guide your writing process, ensuring that every point you make supports and strengthens your overall argument.

Understand the topic and choose a side

Before diving into the debate essay writing process, it is crucial to thoroughly understand the topic at hand and carefully consider which side you will argue for. This step is essential as it sets the foundation for a well-reasoned and persuasive argument.

Take the time to read and research extensively on the topic to gain a comprehensive understanding of its different aspects and perspectives. Look for reliable sources such as books, scholarly articles, and reputable websites to gather information and insights. By doing so, you will be able to familiarize yourself with various arguments, counterarguments, and evidence presented by experts in the field.

Once you have gained a deep understanding of the topic, it is time to choose a side. Consider the different arguments presented by both sides and evaluate which one aligns with your own beliefs, values, and knowledge. Think about the strengths and weaknesses of each argument, as well as the evidence supporting them. Reflect on your own experiences and personal views to help you make an informed decision.

Choosing a side does not necessarily mean that you have to agree with it wholeheartedly. It simply means that you will be presenting and defending that particular perspective in your debate essay. Keep in mind that choosing a side does not imply being closed-minded or dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. A well-rounded debate essay will acknowledge and address counterarguments, showing a balanced and thoughtful approach to the topic.

Once you understand the topic and have chosen a side, you can move on to the next step of the debate essay writing process: gathering evidence and constructing a persuasive argument.

Research and gather supporting evidence

In order to write a strong and convincing debate essay, it is essential to conduct thorough research and gather relevant supporting evidence. Research serves as the foundation for an effective argument, providing credible information that strengthens your position and persuades your audience.

When conducting research, it is important to explore multiple sources to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the topic. This can include peer-reviewed articles, academic journals, books, and reputable websites. By utilizing a variety of sources, you can gain different perspectives and enhance the credibility of your argument.

During the research process, it is crucial to critically analyze the information you gather. This involves evaluating the credibility and reliability of your sources. Look for evidence that is backed by reputable experts, institutions, or organizations. Additionally, consider the timeliness of the information to ensure that you are presenting the most current and relevant data.

As you gather evidence, it is also important to keep track of your sources. This will allow you to properly cite and reference your information in your debate essay. Utilize a citation style guide, such as APA or MLA, to ensure consistency and accuracy in your citations.

When selecting evidence to support your argument, consider the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of information. Choose evidence that is logical, well-reasoned, and directly relevant to your argument. Avoid using biased or unreliable sources that may weaken your position.

In conclusion, research and gathering supporting evidence is a critical step in writing a debate essay. Thorough research and careful evaluation of sources will strengthen your argument and enhance your credibility. By selecting well-reasoned and relevant evidence, you can effectively persuade your audience and present a compelling debate essay.

Organize your arguments

When writing a debate essay, it is crucial to organize your arguments in a clear and logical manner. By doing so, you will be able to effectively present your ideas and support your stance on the given topic. Organizing your arguments not only helps you convey your message more effectively, but it also makes it easier for your readers to comprehend and follow your line of thinking.

One way to organize your arguments is to group them based on similarities or themes. This can be done by identifying common elements or ideas among your arguments and grouping them together. For example, if you are arguing in favor of stricter gun control laws, you might have separate arguments related to reducing gun violence, preventing accidental shootings, and deterring criminals. By grouping these arguments together, you can present a more cohesive and convincing case.

Another way to organize your arguments is by presenting them in a logical order. This can be done by arranging your arguments from the strongest to the weakest or from the most general to the most specific. By structuring your arguments in this way, you can build a strong foundation and gradually persuade your readers as they progress through your essay. Additionally, presenting your arguments in a logical order makes it easier for your readers to follow your reasoning and understand the progression of your ideas.

Furthermore, it is important to provide evidence and examples to support your arguments. This can be done by incorporating research findings, statistics, expert opinions, and real-life examples into your essay. By including evidence, you not only strengthen your arguments but also make them more persuasive and credible. However, it is crucial to ensure that the evidence you present is reliable and relevant to your topic. Additionally, you should clearly explain how the evidence supports your arguments so that your readers can understand the connection.

In conclusion, organizing your arguments is a crucial step in writing a debate essay. By grouping your arguments based on similarities or themes, presenting them in a logical order, and providing evidence to support them, you can effectively convey your ideas and persuade your readers. Remember to stay focused on your main point and to present your arguments in a clear and concise manner. With proper organization, your debate essay will be more impactful and convincing.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center
• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Argumentation Follow Following
• Controversy Follow Following
• Dispute Follow Following
• Rhetoric Follow Following
• Argumentation, Critical Thinking, DIscourse Follow Following
• Policy Debate Follow Following
• Argumentation Theory Follow Following
• Rhetorical Theory Follow Following
• Speech and Debate Follow Following
• Consensus Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

How to Research for a Debate Using Library Resources: Researching Pro and Con

• Defining the Terms of Your Debate
• Researching Pro and Con
• Newspapers and Magazines
• Think Tanks
• Speaker Point Boosters: Rhetoric and Logic

Database Research for Debaters

This database is only accessible at the following NYPL locations: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building; New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center; Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture; Thomas Yoseloff Business Center; All Branch Libraries

The United Nations iLibrary presents a large and growing number of publications across a broad range of UN programs. It comprises not only core sales publications including dozens of statistical compilations, but also more thematic treatments of drug problems, terrorism, climate change, human rights and gender issues, formal reports from its programs and funds as well as a growing archive of Official Records. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Articles & Databases

Visit the Research Database A to Z Page

See all NYPL Databases for Branch and Research Libraries

Scholarly E-Books and E-Text Books

These online collections provide access to thousands of scholarly e-books and text books across all disciplines and in multiple languages.

Access to the full text of over 500 books published by Cambridge University Press and covering the humanities, social and natural sciences, medicine, and English language teaching. Please note: NYPL has access to content published beginning in 2015. All other titles provide access to tables of contents and indices only. Formerly known as Cambridge Books Online (CBO). **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

The full collection of Oxford Handbook series, which provides peer-reviewed research articles from scholars in the field of archaeology, business & management, classical studies, criminology & criminal justice, economics & finance, history, law, linguistics, literature, music, philosophy, political science, psychology, and religion. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

OSEO provides an interlinked collection of authoritative Oxford editions of major works from the humanities. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Provides full-text access to scholarly journals and book-length scholarship in the humanities and social sciences. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

The full text and full catalog of Sage Publishing's social science ebook platform. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Provides full-text access to over 500 peer-reviewed scholarly journals and top quality book-length scholarship in the humanities and social sciences. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Provides online access to a fully searchable collection of high-quality books in the Humanities, recommended and reviewed by scholars. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Databases with Remote Access

Covers a variety of contemporary debated subjects to explore different viewpoints and develop critical thinking skills. Material is divided into an alphabetical list of subjects (Topics) and concepts divided into categories (Perspectives), supported with articles, images, speeches, and other documentation. A good companion to Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Opposing Viewpoints offers material to support differing views and help students develop critical thinking skills on thousands of current social topics in the forms of primary source documents, statistics, websites and multimedia. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

This article database includes full-text and abstracts of scholarly, trade, and general-interest periodicals covering topics in the areas of current events, general sciences and technology, social sciences, arts, and humanities. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

A multi-disciplinary database of more than 4,600 magazines and journals, including full text for nearly 3,900 peer-reviewed titles. In addition to the full-text, this database offers indexing and abstracts for 8,470 journals. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

This archive includes more than 2 million pages of primary resource materials from the records of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The records focus on civil rights, race, gender, and issues relating to the U.S. Supreme Court. The collection includes: legal briefs, newspapers, internal memoranda, client correspondence, and committee reports. Topics covered include: the rise of the Ku Klux Clan, the Civil Rights movement, and ACLU's involvement in the Vietnam War. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Full-text digital resource exploring the history and culture of African Americans, as well as the greater Black Diaspora. Great resource for middle school, high school, and undergraduate users. Browse by type of content and by era. **Patrons should read the Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Covers the organization and key features of the American political system. Material is divided into general overviews (Topics) and explorations of issues (Perspectives), supported with articles, images, speeches, and other documentation. **Patrons should read the Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Full-text digital resource exploring the history and culture of American Indians. Ideal resource for middle school, high school, and undergraduate research on American Indian history. Fully searchable, or browsable by era, tribe, state, and region. **Patrons should read the Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Provides full-text online access to hundreds of multidisciplinary reference book collections, including art, history, law, medicine, psychology, technology, bilingual dictionaries and encyclopedias. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Credo is a vast, online reference library, providing access to the full text of hundreds of highly regarded and popular titles. And Credo brings the facts alive with images, sound files, animations, and much more. Find speedy, simple answers and authoritative, in-depth articles.Credo Reference contains dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries, thesauri, encyclopaedias, quotations and atlases, plus a wide range or subject-specific titles covering everything from accounting to zoology, via maps, math, management, martial arts, media studies, medicine, mountains, moons, music, multimedia, mythology.

This digital archive contains over 2 million pages of primary resource materials that present a broad history of crime in the 19th Century, through manuscripts, books, broadsheets, and periodicals. During this time period, crime and criminals were followed intensely in the newspapers and served as a popular subject for literature and art. This archive covers topics such as the development of the police force, the reformation of the judicial system, the evolution of the penal system, forensic techniques, and popular detectives. Materials in this archive include: police force reports, trial transcripts, prison postcards, true crime fiction, Penny Dreadfuls, The National Police Gazette, and manuscript collections from famous police, criminals, and detectives. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

A searchable, digitized archive -- from the first date of publication to the last three to five years -- of major scholarly journals in many academic fields. Access to this resource has been temporarily expanded to NYPL cardholders working from home, courtesy of JSTOR. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

A collection of research guides for a wide variety of subjects. Includes topic overviews and annotated bibliographies. **Patrons should read the Oxford Bibliographies Online Privacy Policy before searching.**

Indexing, abstracting, and full text of the literature on epistemology, ethics, logic, metaphysics, law, religion and science from periodicals, monographs, and other documents. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Provides articles from periodicals covering arts, business, children, education, health, humanities, law, multicultural studies, sciences, social sciences, and general interest. Full text is available for nearly two-thirds of its titles. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

ProQuest Research Library contains articles from over 2600 newspapers and periodicals covering the arts, business, humanities, health, social sciences, sciences. Of those journals approximately 1700 are available with the full text and/or image.

University Press Scholarship Online offers full text of over 7,000 academic monographs in 21 subject areas covering the humanities, social sciences, medicine, and law from six leading university presses. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

Coverage of major wars including causes, effects, and involved parties in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, from 2000 BCE to the present. Material is divided into general overviews (Topics) and explorations of issues (Perspectives), supported with articles, images, speeches, and other documentation. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

From antiquity to the present day, search a broad collection of scholarly analysis and full-text periodicals, reference works and primary documents that cover the events, movements, and individuals that have shaped world history. **Patrons should read the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy of this resource before searching.**

• << Previous: Defining the Terms of Your Debate
• Next: Newspapers and Magazines >>
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2024 11:42 AM
• URL: https://libguides.nypl.org/howtoresearchforadebatewiththenewyorkpubliclibrary

• Pikes Peak Library District

Debate Issues & Paper Topics

• Recommended Websites
• Choosing a Topic
• Gathering & Evaluating Sources
• Citation Tools
• Opposing Viewpoints in Context
• Databases by Subject
• Writing Help
• Educator Resources This link opens in a new window
• Search the PPLD Catalog
• PPLD Teens Homepage

Recommended Websites for an Argumentative Paper

• ProCon.org Find unbiased pro and con information on 42 controversial issues. Each topic includes a summary of the issue, a "Did You Know?" section, pro & con arguments, background information, and a video gallery.
• International Debate Education Association Search for statistics, topics, and articles listing pros and cons on a large amount of themes. Also contains a link to Debatepedia, a wiki encyclopedia of debates.
• Debate Central An online resource created and maintained by the National Center for Policy Analysis for high school students researching the nationwide high school debate topic.

Evaluating Web Resources

Anyone can publish a webpage without it being evaluated for accuracy or quality of information. Reviews by peers, scholars, editors, and publishers are not often applied to websites. The following evaluation criteria should be applied when viewing a website:

• Authorship. Is the author identified? What are the author's credentials? For example, does the site include the author's position and institutional or organizational affiliation? Is the URL for an educational institution (.edu) or government agency (.gov)? 
• Accuracy. Can the data be verified from other sources? Does the author have an obvious bias? Check the facts.
• Audience. Is the site intended for scholars, professionals, or students?
• Currency. Does the website include the date it was created and/or updated? Are the links current?
• Coverage. Does the site state its intended scope? Is it designed to cover an entire subject, or to give detailed information on one aspect?
• Relative Value. How does it compare to other sources of similar information? Are there other more accurate or complete sources - possibly in print format or a library database? Even with all of the useful information online, sometimes the most reliable resources are print books on the shelf at the library.

For additional information, check out the link below. This source offers detailed criteria that can be applied when conducting research on the internet.

• Dalhousie University Criteria for Websites
• << Previous: Databases by Subject
• Next: Writing Help >>
• Last Updated: Sep 23, 2023 11:45 AM
• URL: https://research.ppld.org/papertopics

Disclaimer: This website includes links to non-PPLD websites and services. PPLD cannot control the content or functionality of non-PPLD websites or services nor endorse the accessibility or accuracy of those sites. Users should use critical judgment in relying on information found in these resources and determine what information is appropriate to their needs. This website also links to documents that may not be fully accessible, documents can be made accessible by request. Please visit our Accessibility page for more information.

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

55 Great Debate Topics for Any Project

General Education

A debate is a formal discussion about a topic where two sides present opposing viewpoints. Debates follow a specific structure: each side is given time to speak either for or against the topic at hand.

Many students study debate in high school to improve their speaking skills. As a debater, you learn how to clearly structure and present an argument. The skills you develop as a debater will help you on everything from a college admissions interview to a job presentation.

Selecting debate topics is one of the most important parts of debating. In this article, we’ll explain how to select a good debate topic and give suggestions for debate topics you can use.

How to Select Good Debate Topics

A good debate topic is one that lets the participants and the audience learn about both sides of an issue. Consider the following factors when selecting a debate topic:

Interest: Are you interested in the topic? Would the topic be interesting to your fellow classmates, as well as to the audience listening to the debate? Selecting a topic that you’re interested in makes the preparation part of the debate more exciting , as well as the debate more lively.

Argument Potential: You want to choose a debate topic that has solid argument potential. If one side is clearly right, or if there isn’t a lot of available information, you’ll have a hard time crafting a solid debate.

Availability of Data: Data points make an argument more robust. You’ll want to select a topic with lots of empirical data that you can pull from to bolster your argument.

Now that we know how to select a debate topic, let’s look at a list of good debate topics.

Debate Topics Master List

If you’re searching for your next debate topic, here are some suggestions.

Social and Political Issues Debate Topics

• All people should have the right to own guns.
• The death penalty should be abolished.
• Human cloning should be legalized.
• All drugs should be legalized.
• Animal testing should be banned.
• Juveniles should be tried and treated as adults.
• Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity today.
• Violent video games should be banned.
• The minimum wage should be $15 per hour.
• All people should have Universal Basic Income.
• Sex work should be legal.
• Countries should be isolationist.
• Abortion should be banned.
• Every citizen should be mandated to perform national public service.
• Bottled water should be banned.
• Plastic bags should be banned.

Education Debate Topics

• Homework should be banned.
• Public prayer should not be allowed in schools.
• Schools should block sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram on their computers.
• School uniforms should be required.
• Standardized testing should be abolished.
• All students should have an after-school job or internship.
• School should be in session year-round.
• All high school athletes should be drug tested.
• Detention should be abolished.
• All student loan debt should be eliminated.
• Homeschooling is better than traditional schooling.
• All schools should have armed security guards.
• Religion should be taught in schools.
• All schools should be private schools.
• All students should go to boarding schools.
• Sexual education should be mandatory in schools.
• Public college should be tuition free.
• All teachers should get tenure.
• All school districts should offer school vouchers.

Health Debate Topics

• Healthcare should be universal.
• Cosmetic procedures should be covered by health insurance.
• All people should be vegetarians.
• Euthanasia should be banned.
• The drinking age should be 18.
• Vaping should be banned.
• Smoking should be banned in all public places.
• People should be legally required to get vaccines.
• Obesity should be labeled a disease.
• Sexual orientation is determined at birth.
• The sale of human organs should be legalized.
• Birth control should be for sale over the counter.

Technology Debate Topics

• Social media has improved human communication.
• The development of artificial intelligence will help humanity.
• Individuals should own their own DNA.
• Humans should invest in technology to explore and colonize other planets.
• Governments should invest in alternative energy sources.
• Net neutrality should be restored.
• Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies should be encouraged or banned.
• Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels.
• Cell phone radiation is dangerous and should be limited.

How to Prepare for a Debate

Once you’ve selected your debate topic, the next step is to prepare for your debate. Follow these steps as you get ready to take the podium.

Read Your Evidence

The most important step to building your debate confidence is to familiarize yourself with the evidence available. You’ll want to select reputable sources and use empirical data effectively.

The more well read on your topic you are, the better you’ll be able to defend your position and anticipate the other side’s arguments.

Anticipate the Other Side’s Arguments

As part of your debate, you’ll need to rebut the other side’s arguments. It’s important to prepare ahead of time to guess what they’ll be talking about. You’ll bolster your own side’s argument if you’re able to effectively dismantle what the other side is saying.

Plan to Fill Your Speech Time

Each speaker at a debate is limited to a certain amount of time. You should plan to use every second of the time that you’re allotted. Make sure you practice your talking points so that you know you’re within the time frame. If you’re short, add in more evidence.

Practice to Build Confidence

It can be scary to take the stage for a debate! Practicing ahead of time will help you build confidence. Remember to speak slowly and clearly. Even if your argument is great, it won’t matter if no one can understand it.

Final Thoughts

Debate is a great way to hone your public speaking skills and get practice crafting and defending an argument. Use these debate topics if you're searching for a focus for your next debate.

What's Next?

Looking for ways to keep the debate going in non-academic life? Then you'll love our list of 101 "this or that" questions to argue over with your friends.

Thinking about how you can use your argumentative skills in a future career? Read up on the five steps to becoming a lawyer to see if that's a path you want to pursue.

Getting ready to take an AP test? Here’s a list of practice tests for every AP exam, including the AP literature exam .

It can be hard to schedule time to study for an AP test on top of your extracurriculars and normal classwork. Check out this article on when you need to start studying for your AP tests to make sure you’re staying on track.

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Hayley Milliman is a former teacher turned writer who blogs about education, history, and technology. When she was a teacher, Hayley's students regularly scored in the 99th percentile thanks to her passion for making topics digestible and accessible. In addition to her work for PrepScholar, Hayley is the author of Museum Hack's Guide to History's Fiercest Females.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!