Breaking the Mold: Reevaluating the Need for a Third Substantive Argument
Whether it’s during the stressful hour before an impromptu round [1] or while writing cases weeks in advance for a prepared round [2], most World Schools debaters are quite accustomed to racking their brains for a third argument. Various ideas float around but are ultimately rejected because the warranting is too similar to the first two arguments. This then begs the question: Are third substantive arguments truly necessary in World Schools Debate?
Third arguments are commonly viewed as a fundamental requirement, yet they often fail to serve their intended purpose. Two key factors shed light on why third arguments may weaken rather than fortify a case.
Repetition: While the impacts of your third argument may be distinct from the first two, the warranting [3] is often the same. The result is the second speaker allocating a significant portion of time reiterating links [4] their teammate already outlined. This could be mitigated by simply including the additional impacts under your first and second substantive arguments. For example, a third argument about benefitting low-income communities may have similar warranting to a second argument about overall economic benefits. If the links to these impacts are the same, you can combine them into one argument to use speaking time most efficiently and effectively.
Relevance: Debaters are told to use third arguments as a strategy to shift the debate to a specific focus or stakeholder [5]. However, this strategy fails without proper execution. Either the second speaker does not dedicate enough time to fleshing out the argument or the third speaker fails to properly defend it. Instead of being strategic, the third argument becomes insignificant within the broader context of the debate. If the rest of the debate revolves around other analysis, it is unlikely that a judge will take into account an argument that is notably irrelevant to the round that is being debated. For context, in a round about working policies, the majority of the debate is going to center around the workforce. While a third argument about the impact on corporations may have larger implications on the economy, it would not be relevant to the focus of the debate.
All of this is to say, forcing your case to fit the formulaic structure of three distinct arguments can end up harming instead of helping you in a round. Many debaters in the World Schools community have already noticed this, seeing as the culture around third arguments is starting to shift. An increasing number of teams are normalizing the strategy of presenting a case with just two strong arguments instead of three. This was exemplified at major competitions this past year, including the final round of the 2023 World Schools Debating Championships where the champions, Team USA, only ran two substantive arguments as the proposition team [6]. Having the extra time for refutation allowed their second speaker to thoroughly address every idea, making it harder for the second opposition speaker to follow.
What are some specific strategic benefits reaped by embracing this shift? The extra two to three minutes left in a second speech can give you time to craft more detailed responses and effectively counter arguments. The first two arguments can be fortified through strategic extensions [7], allowing you to delve deeper into the mechanisms you have already provided as well as add more. This additional time also gives you more freedom in engaging with your opponent’s case material. Recently, many debaters have started to include clash points as early as the second speech, and in order to properly develop these clash points, speakers must have excellent time allocation. Even further, you can spend more time introducing weighing mechanisms to make the third speaker’s job significantly easier. This extra time is especially beneficial on side opposition, where there is not one but two speeches to respond to as the second speaker. Every second is valued when you have eight minutes to refute sixteen minutes of material.
That being said, there are certainly instances where a third argument could be strategic. If there is truly a unique stakeholder or perspective to be considered, use the third argument to highlight it. In fact, a solid third argument can set up the perfect collapse for a third speaker. To illustrate, a case arguing that facial recognition technology should be banned could have a third argument about how it may be used to identify and target individuals in social movements and protests. This would be distinct from the other two arguments but important enough for the third speaker to blow up. The opposing team could easily ignore the impact, leaving you a direct path to the ballot.
“Third arguments can be an excellent way to shift the debate from the second speech and narrow in on your best path to the ballot. A good quality third argument can truly win you a round.”
- Kaveen Shah, Senior at Kinkaid School
While constructing a case, revert to the common phrase “quality over quantity.” If there is genuinely an impactful argument to be made, then choose to include a third argument. However, if you and your teammates find yourself struggling to think of an idea, consider breaking the mold and not including one. If the argument is only there to check a box, it is likely not worth it in the first place.
[1] Impromptu Round: For an impromptu round, the debate motion is released one hour prior to the debate. Teams use that time to prepare a case for their side without the use of the internet.
[2] Prepared Round: For a prepared round, the debate motion is released weeks prior to the debate, and teams may use online material to prepare.
[3] Warranting: This refers to how debaters justify their arguments.
[4] Links: The ways in which the impacts mentioned are reached are known as links.
[5] Stakeholder: These are the groups of people most impacted by the topic being debated.
[6] Proposition: This is the team in World Schools debate that is proposing, or agreeing with the motion.
[7] Extensions: This is when you add links and impacts and further explain arguments previously made.
