What Makes an Argument?

In competitive debate, an "argument" is not just a claim or opinion. It is a structured piece of reasoning that persuades the judge that your claim is true. Judges consistently reward speakers who build arguments with clear logic, specific mechanisms, and relevant evidence. Understanding the anatomy of a strong argument is the single most important skill a debater can develop.

The ARE Framework

The most widely used framework for argument construction in parliamentary debate is ARE — Assertion, Reasoning, Evidence:

  1. Assertion: State your claim clearly and specifically. What exactly are you arguing? For example: "This policy will reduce income inequality in developing countries."
  2. Reasoning: Explain why your claim is true. This is the mechanism — the logical chain that connects your claim to reality. What causal process makes this outcome likely? For example: "Because progressive taxation redistributes wealth from high earners to public services that disproportionately benefit low-income households, creating a multiplier effect on social mobility."
  3. Evidence: Support your reasoning with concrete examples, data, analogies, or historical precedents. This makes your argument tangible and credible. For example: "The Nordic countries demonstrate this — Sweden's progressive tax system funds universal healthcare and education, contributing to one of the lowest Gini coefficients globally."

Going Beyond ARE: The AREA Framework

Top-level debaters extend ARE with an additional step — Analysis, creating the AREA framework:

  • Assertion — state your claim
  • Reasoning — explain the mechanism
  • Evidence — provide concrete support
  • Analysis — explain why this matters in the context of the debate, and why it should outweigh opposing arguments

The analysis step is what separates good speakers from great ones. It demonstrates that you understand not just your own argument, but how it fits into the broader debate and why the judge should find it more compelling than the other side's case.

Common Argument Mistakes

Even experienced debaters fall into these traps:

1. Assertion Without Reasoning

Stating "This policy is bad for the economy" without explaining why or how is not an argument — it is a bare assertion. Judges will ignore claims that lack reasoning, no matter how confidently they are stated.

2. Evidence Without Explanation

Dropping a statistic or country example without explaining how it supports your argument is name-dropping, not argumentation. Always connect your evidence back to your reasoning: "This matters because..."

3. Generic Arguments

Arguments that could apply to almost any motion — like "this violates human rights" or "this is paternalistic" — without specific analysis of how they apply to the current motion are weak. Judges reward specificity and reward arguments that are clearly tailored to the motion at hand.

4. Mechanism-Free Impact Claims

Claiming "thousands will die" or "the economy will collapse" without explaining the causal mechanism is alarmism, not argumentation. Always explain the step-by-step process that leads from the policy to the claimed impact.

Types of Arguments

Different types of arguments serve different functions in a debate:

  • Principled arguments: Based on moral or philosophical principles (rights, fairness, autonomy, justice). Effective when the debate involves value conflicts.
  • Practical arguments: Based on real-world outcomes and consequences. Effective when the debate is about whether a policy would work.
  • Comparative arguments: Comparing the status quo with the proposed change, or comparing different stakeholders' interests. Effective for weighing competing considerations.
  • Counter-intuitive arguments: Arguments that challenge the obvious assumption. Often risky but highly rewarding when well-supported — they demonstrate sophisticated thinking.

Building Arguments Under Time Pressure

In impromptu debates, you often have 15–30 minutes to prepare. Here is a practical process:

  1. Brainstorm stakeholders: Who is affected by this motion? List 3–5 groups.
  2. Identify mechanisms: For each stakeholder, what changes under the motion? What causal chain leads from the motion to an impact on them?
  3. Select your strongest 2–3 arguments: Choose arguments with clear mechanisms and available evidence. Depth beats breadth.
  4. Structure each argument: Use ARE/AREA. Write a one-sentence assertion for each, then note the key reasoning points and 1–2 pieces of evidence.

Practice Exercises

Improve your argument construction with these drills:

  • Motion analysis: Take any motion from the Motion Bank and write out 3 arguments for each side using the AREA framework. Time yourself — aim for 15 minutes.
  • Evidence bank: Build a personal database of examples, case studies, and data points organised by topic area (economics, human rights, environment, etc.). Review it regularly.
  • Argument repair: Take a weak argument (assertion only) and add reasoning, evidence, and analysis to make it compelling.