Rebuttal prep
Anticipate the other side's best arguments and line up your responses. Built for debaters who need evidence that holds up under cross-examination, not vibes.
Key highlights
Their best four, predicted
The strongest arguments the other side will run — stated fairly, not strawmanned.
The weak link found
Where each argument's warrant or evidence actually breaks.
30-second responses
A tight reply to each, with a card or example you can deliver.
The one to fear
The argument most likely to beat you — and how to pre-empt it in your case.
About this template
You lose rounds to the argument you didn't see coming. This template predicts the four strongest cases the other side will run on your resolution, states each one fairly, then finds the weakest link in its warrant or evidence and hands you a tight 30-second response with a card or example.
It also names the single argument you should be most worried about and shows how to pre-empt it inside your own case — so you neutralize their best material before they ever stand up. It's the prep that turns a clash you'd have lost into one you've already rehearsed.
Model Diplomat vs. generic AI
The same prompt in a general chatbot can produce something that reads right and isn't. Here's the difference.
| Aspect | This template | ChatGPT / generic AI |
|---|---|---|
| Sources | Primary documents, cited and openable | Often fabricated, or none at all |
| Format | Laid out as debate flow, carded and ready to run | Prose you still have to card and structure yourself |
| Verifiability | Every claim checkable against its source | No way to tell what's real |
| Built for the work | Tuned for diplomacy, politics, and law | General-purpose, not domain-aware |
| Cost | Free to start | — |
Who it's for
Competitive debaters
Building a rebuttal prep with evidence that holds up under cross-examination.
Debate students new to evidence
Learning how carded, sourced arguments are actually constructed.
Coaches and judges
Prepping practice rounds and showing students what strong cases look like.
Anyone arguing across formats
Adapting a case to policy, LD, PF, or World Schools conventions.
What you'll fill in
A preview of the 2 fields you'll complete in the composer — the rest is written for you.
The prompt
This is what lands in your composer — edit the [blanks] and send.
I'm debating an affirmative on the resolution: "[resolution]". Predict the four strongest arguments the other side will run. For each: state their argument fairly, identify the weakest link in its warrant or evidence, and give me a tight 30-second response with a card or example. Then give me the one argument I should be most worried about and how to pre-empt it in my own case.
Start from this template
Model Diplomat fills it in with answers grounded in primary sources — every claim comes with a citation you can check.
Related templates
Browse all →Debate case
Aff/neg case with carded evidence. Every claim sourced to a real document.
Cross-examination
Questions that set traps and corner your opponent — with the follow-ups.
Country brief
Foreign-policy position on a topic, with allies, voting record, and rationale.
Position paper
Conference-ready paper in your committee's standard format. Footnoted and exportable.