A risk that moral arguments will contradict each other

A situation where a policy encourages irresponsible behavior

A type of motion based on ethical dilemmas or immoral claims

A speaker’s personal bias leaking into a moral claim of the discussion

A rebuttal that forces the other team into two losing responses

A model that contradicts the motion’s wording or their ability to be effective twice

A policy that creates equal harm and benefit in a double bid for control of the discussion

A definition that supports both sides equally

To show why a certain outcome is more likely to occur

To prove that an impact is morally justified

To compare only short-term harms between teams

To reduce the importance of long-term outcomes

Foundational moral or philosophical truths

Empirical data from recent case studies

Stakeholder interviews and surveys

The team’s framing and time allocation

Clarifying a stakeholder’s role in the debate

Proving that an opponent’s principle is flawed

Changing how the audience sees the importance of an issue

Repeating your team's original burden of proof

A judge’s responsibility to provide fair adjudication

An ethical obligation an actor has toward others

A speaker’s duty to uphold WSDC rules

A requirement to cite sources accurately

To introduce new terminology from law

To offer evidence that the model is already realistic

To appeal to older judges with legal experience

To emphasize the lack of reform in history

A type of harm based on exaggerated hypotheticals

Treating two unequal harms as if they are the same

Comparing unrelated stakeholders for emotional appeal

A rebuttal that is made with incorrect statistics

It cannot coexist with the opposing team’s world

It only applies to elite or niche stakeholders

It uses data from a single time period

It targets emotions rather than facts

The moral relevance of your team’s actions

The number of people affected by a certain impact

The emotional severity of the outcome

The time available to deliver the argument

Whether harms can be traced to a single cause

Whether part of a policy can be removed without collapsing it

Whether an actor’s motivation changes throughout the round

Whether the motion is too abstract to evaluate

The burden to weigh impacts at the end of the debate

The requirement to introduce and support new arguments

The need to include stakeholder perspectives

The obligation to rebut points made by earlier speakers

A highly subjective motion about morality

The argument that determines which team wins

A contradiction in reply that forces judge intervention

A repeated example that disrupts the motion

Preventing strong teams from facing weak ones too early

Ensuring every team has one win before round 4

Matching ESL teams only against native speakers

Protecting the motion's side balance in every round

Someone impacted slightly but still worth analyzing

A character example used for rhetorical effect only

A policy-maker whose influence is not explained

A judge with unclear voting criteria

A misquote or error in factual evidence

Two arguments that undermine each other

A speaker failing to deliver the model

A rebuttal that backfires strategically

A typical stakeholder is fictional; an extreme one is historical

A typical stakeholder represents the average impact group

An extreme stakeholder is only valid in economic motions

A typical stakeholder is used only in reply speeches

Judges may see it as unrealistic or exaggerated

It leads to fewer examples being presented

It weakens the model by default

It results in procedural disqualification

That the argument is easier to weigh in reply

That the team’s stance reflects a likely real-world position

That stakeholders can understand the policy of the proposition

That the judges must split their decision between two teams

The degree of conflict between competing arguments

The time when speakers interrupt each other

A motion that uses opposing ideological values

The final weighing made in the reply speech

A war declared with the support of a UN member

A policy enacted to protect a vulnerable stakeholder

A morally legitimate reason for using power or force

A legal standard required to charge an actor

Whether only powerful actors can receive protection

Whether the model delivers outcomes fairly across society

Whether emotional impact outweighs economic gain

Whether short-term gain can justify long-term harm

Judging a model by how it has worked in the past

Claiming outcomes were predictable when they were not

Using emotions to justify past actions

Relying on past judges' decisions to craft a case

Introducing rebuttal against arguments you expect them to run

Ignoring minor impacts to protect stronger ones

Giving a passionate speech to gain speaker points

Repeating the motion to reframe it from the start