Skip to content
Support Notice

The User Guide is currently undergoing major re-construction, which we are aiming to complete by the end of April 2026. In the meantime please email support@debate.report

Thank you for your patience, and your ongoing interest in debate.report. We are aiming to build a world-class debate platform, and to encourage many more people to engage in meaningful debate. The platform essentially turns debating into a fun and enjoyable game for the participants, and which helps participants and the audience alike to develop and sharpen their critical-thinking skills and to come to an informed position on the important issues of the day.

the Debate Report Team, March 2026

Statement Types

Debate Structure Diagram - Simplified Here is a diagram that shows how the different types of statement relate to each other in an argument. Not all types of statement or relationships are shown in this simplified view. 
---
title: Simplified Debate Structure Diagram
---
classDiagram
direction TB

class RESOLUTION {
    a formal statement that sets
    the topic for the debate
    which one side affirms
    and the other side negates
}

class CLAIM {
    an assertion made by a debater
    stating a belief or position
    supported by evidence
}

class REBUTTAL {
    response to an opponent
    argument, where a debater
    either disagrees or refutes
    a claim, warrant or impact
}

class IMPACT {
    the consequence or significance
    of the argument, quantifying
    or evaluating how the outcome
    affects people or society
}

class WARRANT {
    provides the logical reason
    or justification for why
    the statement is true,
    explaining the connection  
}

class EVIDENCE {
    serves as the support for
    the warrant, taking the form
    of statistics, specific examples,
    testimony, or expert opinion
}

RESOLUTION     "1"      -->   "1..*"  CLAIM              : "supported or denied by"

CLAIM          "1"      -->   "0..*"  WARRANT            : "justified or proven by"
CLAIM          "0..1"    -->   "0..*"  IMPACT             : "has impact"

REBUTTAL       "0..1"   -->   "0..1"  IMPACT             : "rebutts"
REBUTTAL       "0..1"   -->   "0..*"  IMPACT             : "has impact"
REBUTTAL       "0..1"   -->   "0..1"  WARRANT            : "rebutts"
REBUTTAL       "0..1"   -->   "0..1"  WARRANT            : "justified or proven by"
REBUTTAL       "0..1"   -->   "0..1"  CLAIM              : "rebutts"

EVIDENCE       "*"      -->   "0..*"  WARRANT            : "supports"

Full Diagram

Debate Structure Diagram Here is a diagram that shows how the different types of statement relate to each other in an argument 
---
title: Debate Structure Diagram
---
classDiagram
direction TB

class RESOLUTION {
    a formal statement that sets
    the topic for the debate
    which one side affirms
    and the other side negates
}

class FRAMEWORK {
    set of principles or standards
    used to evaluate the resolution
    explaining why a particular
    perspective is the best
}

class CLAIM {
    an assertion made by a debater
    stating a belief or position
    supported by evidence
}

class REBUTTAL {
    response to an opponent
    argument, where a debater
    either disagrees or refutes
    a claim, warrant or impact
}

class TURN {
    an argument that reverses
    the meaning or effect
    of an opponent's argument
}

class IMPACT {
    the consequence or significance
    of the argument, quantifying
    or evaluating how the outcome
    affects people or society
}

class WARRANT {
    provides the logical reason
    or justification for why
    the statement is true,
    explaining the connection  
}

class EVIDENCE {
    serves as the support for
    the warrant, taking the form
    of statistics, specific examples,
    testimony, or expert opinion
}

RESOLUTION     "1"   -->   "1"     FRAMEWORK          : "evaluated using"
RESOLUTION     "1"   -->   "1..*"  CLAIM              : "supported or denied by"

CLAIM          "1"   -->   "0..1"  IMPACT
CLAIM          "1"   -->   "0..1"  TURN
CLAIM          "1"   -->   "0..1"  WARRANT            : "justifies or proves"
CLAIM          "1"   -->   "0..1"  REBUTTAL           : "can be rebutted"

TURN           "1"   -->   "0..1"  CLAIM              : "turns"
TURN           "1"   -->   "0..1"  IMPACT             : "turns"
TURN           "1"   -->   "0..1"  REBUTTAL           : "turns"

IMPACT         "1"   ..>   "0..1"  TURN               : "impacts"
IMPACT         "1"   ..>   "0..1"  REBUTTAL           : "impacts"
IMPACT         "1"   ..>   "0..1"  CLAIM              : "impacts"

REBUTTAL       "1"   -->   "0..1"  TURN               : "rebutts"
REBUTTAL       "1"   -->   "0..1"  CLAIM              : "disagrees or disproves"
REBUTTAL       "1"   -->   "0..1"  IMPACT             : rebutts
REBUTTAL       "1"   -->   "0..1"  WARRANT            : rebutts

WARRANT        "1"   -->   "0..1"  CLAIM              : "justifies or proves"
WARRANT        "1"   -->   "0..1"  REBUTTAL           : "justifies or proves"

EVIDENCE       "*"   -->   "0..*"  WARRANT            : "supports"

Resolution

A resolution statement in a debate serves as the central proposition that defines the topic and the specific stance to be argued, acting as the foundation for the entire discussion. It is typically a clear, concise, and balanced statement that presents a specific issue, often framed as a policy change, a factual claim, or a value judgment. The resolution sets the scope and focus of the debate, guiding the arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

The resolution is usually structured with a prefix (like "Resolved:", "This house believes that", or "Be it resolved") followed by a subject (the main topic) and a predicate (the specific claim or stance).

For example, "Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a universal health care system". This format clearly establishes the position the affirmative team must defend and the position the negative team must oppose.

In a policy debate, the affirmative team proposes a specific plan to implement the resolution, while the negative team argues against the plan's solvency, feasibility, or desirability. In a scientific debate, the affirmative team proposes reasons why the resolution is true, which the negative team argues why it is false.

The rules for using Resolutions (sometimes called a motion or proposal) are:

  • One Resolution statement is crafted by the debate moderator to clearly set out the intentions or findings to be debated. The ensuing debate will then determine the level of support for it. The resolution remains fixed throughout the debate to maintain fairness and structure.
  • If the moderator wishes to change a resolution they must create a new one and request debaters to consider the new resolution and whether they want to transfer their arguments from the old one to the new one. The old resolution can then be closed.
  • A Resolution can have the following types of statement attached to it: claim, framework

Framework

A framework statement in a debate functions as the lens or set of criteria through which the judge evaluates the arguments presented during the round and ultimately determines the winner. It establishes the rules for judging by specifying how the impacts of the arguments should be prioritized and compared. Without a framework, the judge might rely on subjective judgment, such as which side was more convincing, leading to unpredictable and potentially biased outcomes. By proposing a framework, debaters essentially define how the ballot should be filled out, re-writing the implicit rule of "whoever convinces me wins" into a more structured standard.

A framework typically consists of two main parts: the method for evaluating the round (the rules) and the justification for why the judge should use that method (the warrant). Common frameworks include

  • cost-benefit analysis, which weighs the advantages and disadvantages of a position
  • utilitarianism, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number
  • human rights, which emphasizes moral obligations to uphold dignity
  • national security, which focuses on the safety of the United States.

The framework should be relevant to the resolution and support the debater's case, often being constructed to nullify the opponent's arguments and make the debater's own case easier to defend.

Debaters can argue for their framework using three types of arguments:

  • resolution-specific arguments, which use the wording or intent of the resolution to justify the framework
  • internal arguments, which assess the fairness and practicality of the framework for the round, such as whether it places an unfair burden on one side
  • external arguments, which consider the broader implications of adopting a framework, such as whether it promotes a realistic or educational debate environment.

A strong framework is one that is fair, supports the debater's case, and is easy to defend.

The rules for using Frameworks are:

  • One Framework statement can be attached to a Resolution. Any views or parameters necessary to frame the debate should be described in the framework statement.
  • A Framework cannot be attached to any other type of statement, only to the Resolution.

Claim

A claim statement in a debate is a clear, arguable assertion that defines a central point of contention, serving as a foundation for an entire argument. It is a single statement of controversy that both the pro-side and con-side must debate, with the pro-side arguing for its acceptance and the con-side arguing for its rejection, thereby challenging the current status quo.

The claim must be specific, unbiased, and phrased as a statement rather than a question to ensure a focused pro-versus-con debate environment. It is essential that the claim is debatable, not merely a fact, and that it invites discussion by taking a strong, defensible position.

There can be any number of claims for a resolution, and a claim can be either for or against the resolution.

The rules for using Claims

  • There should be at least two claims associated with a resolution, to create the cases for and against.
  • If a debater wants to create a new claim they should check existing claims to make sure someone else hasn't already made the claim. If necessary a debater can add a discussion point or attach new evidence to an existing claim rather than creating a new, perhaps only slightly different, claim. The debate structure will be much easier to understand if everyone adopts this principle.
  • Each claim should have evidence to back it up and also a warrant to describe the reasons why the evidence backs up the claim. A claim should also have an impact statement. Finally, a claim my have a rebuttal statement posted against it, and may have a discussion point raised on it.

Rebuttal

In a public forum debate, a rebuttal statement is a short statement that directly responds to an argument presented by the opposing team. The primary purpose of the rebuttal is to dismantle the opponent's case by explaining why the opponents arguments are flawed or invalid, and providing evidence or logical reasoning to support this. A high-quality rebuttal should include ogical reasoning, evidence, or a "turn" that reverses the opponent's argument to support the rebuttor's own position. As well as rebutting the opponent's arguments, the rebuttor should also add claims, warrants and evidence of their own to support the case against the resolution. The rebuttal process is crucial as it allows debaters to engage directly with their opponents' claims, weaken their case, and ultimately persuade the judge that their side is more valid. A rebuttal may actually disprove the opposition's claim, in which case it is called a refutation.

Turn

In a public forum debate, a turn is a response that argues the opponent's own argument actually supports the speaker's side instead of theirs. It is a strategic move where a debater concedes part of the opponent's argument but then explains how that concession leads to a conclusion favorable to their own position. There are two primary types of turns: link turns and impact turns. A link turn challenges the causal connection within the opponent's argument, asserting that the link leads to the opposite outcome. This type of turn is usually applied to the claim statement which (on the debate.report platform) should include the links. An impact turn argues that the consequence (impact) the opponent claims is actually negative for them or positive for the speaker's side, effectively reversing the value of the impact. For example, if an opponent argues that a policy leads to economic recession (a negative impact), an impact turn would claim that the recession is actually beneficial, perhaps by stimulating innovation or forcing necessary economic reforms. It is crucial to note that a turn is distinct from a non-unique or a de-link, which merely argue that the opponent's argument is flawed or irrelevant, rather than transforming it into offensive material for the speaker's side.

Impact

In a public forum debate, an impact statement explains the significance or consequence of an argument, answering the question "Why does this matter?" It is the final result of a cause-and-effect relationship that demonstrates the value or importance of the argument to the resolution. The impact clarifies the ultimate harm or benefit that results from the argument, such as economic decline leading to poverty or war. Effective impact statements are crucial for judges to understand which consequences are most important to weigh.

Evidence

An evidence statement in a debate is specific, verifiable information that strengthens or proves an argument. It typically consists of a citation containing reference details like the author, date, and source, followed by a section of the author's original text, often underlined or highlighted to indicate the portion read during the debate. This evidence serves as a foundation for the reasons provided to support a claim, helping to compel the audience to accept the argument.

The evidence is used to justify the claim, and its significance must be explained via an associated warrant which show how the evidence supports the argument.

The rules for using Evidence statements are:

  • Evidence can include facts, statistics, examples, studies, testimonials, or analogies, and it must be properly attributed to an authoritative source to be valid. A link to the source can be included in the statement. Debaters are responsible for the validity of all evidence they introduce, and it must be presented accurately, without distortion, clipping, or misrepresentation.

Warrant

An evidence statement in a debate is specific, verifiable information that strengthens or proves an argument. It typically consists of a citation containing reference details like the author, date, and source, followed by a section of the author's original text, often underlined or highlighted to indicate the portion read during the debate. This evidence serves as a foundation for the reasons provided to support a claim, helping to compel the audience to accept the argument.

The evidence is used to justify the claim, and its significance must be explained via an associated warrant which show how the evidence supports the argument.