What are the best ways to structure a debate argument?

1 The Toulmin model

The Toulmin model is a widely used method of structuring a debate argument and consists of six elements: claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. For instance, if you are arguing that smoking should be banned in public places, your claim would be that smoking should be prohibited in such areas. The data to support this would be the health problems smoking causes for both smokers and non-smokers. The warrant would be the reasoning that links the data to the claim, which in this case is that public places are shared by everyone and everyone has the right to breathe clean air. To further strengthen this point, backing from the World Health Organization showing exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory infections can be included. A qualifier such as "unless there are designated areas with proper ventilation and signage" can also be added. Finally, you can anticipate and address any counter-arguments such as smoking being a personal choice by including a rebuttal.

2 The Rogerian approach

The Rogerian approach is a less confrontational and more collaborative way of structuring a debate argument that aims to find common ground and mutual understanding with the opposing side. This approach involves acknowledging the complexity and validity of the issue, summarizing the opposing view in a fair and respectful manner, explaining one's own view with reasons, and proposing a compromise or solution that benefits both sides. For example, if you are arguing that vegetarianism is better for the environment, your Rogerian approach might look like this: an introduction that recognizes the importance of the issue; a summary of the opposing view which states that many people enjoy eating meat and believe it is an essential part of their diet; a statement of your own view which highlights how vegetarianism reduces greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, land use, and deforestation; and a proposal of a compromise or solution which suggests reducing meat consumption and trying more plant-based alternatives. In this way, we can improve our health, save money, and protect the environment and animals.

3 Monroe's motivated sequence

Monroe's motivated sequence is a persuasive technique that structures a debate argument in a way that appeals to the audience's emotions and motivates them to take action. It consists of five steps: attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, and action. To begin, capture the audience’s interest and curiosity. Then, identify a problem or gap that affects them. Next, propose a solution or answer that addresses the need. Then, illustrate the benefits or consequences of adopting or rejecting the solution. Finally, urge the audience to do something or change their behavior. To illustrate this technique, consider an example where you are arguing that people should donate blood. Start by imagining a situation where someone you love needs a blood transfusion to survive but there is not enough blood available in the hospital. This is not hypothetical; it happens every day with thousands of people in need of blood for various reasons. The solution is simple: donate blood and save up to three lives with one donation while also improving your own health. Visualize the positive impact your donation can have on yourself and others and think of the negative consequences of your inaction on yourself and others. Ultimately, it is up to you to make a difference; sign up for a blood donation appointment and save lives today!

4 Here’s what else to consider

This is a space to share examples, stories, or insights that don’t fit into any of the previous sections. What else would you like to add?