Recap
Last time,
nobody won.
Why?
You were both arguing inside the same frame. Neither side questioned the assumption that made the whole debate possible. That assumption is where arguments actually live or die.
⏱ 3–4 min
In Part One, both sides used PEEL correctly. Both sides rebutted. The debate was competent — and went nowhere. Both sides were arguing inside the same question: is monitoring justified?
Neither side asked the harder question: does the school's authority extend to private digital space at all? That assumption was underneath both arguments. No one touched it.
When PEEL becomes a cage
PEEL builds an argument. It doesn't question the frame the argument stands in. Name the assumption underneath the Point — the thing you relied on without saying — and the whole structure falls. PEEL never told you that assumption needed defending.
⏱ 8–10 min
Every argument rests on assumptions that are never stated. The speaker treats them as obvious — too obvious to defend. That's the vulnerability. Don't argue against what was said. Name the assumption underneath it.
The move — one sentence, always the same structure
"That argument only works if you accept that ___. But we don't — and here's why."
Before you see it executed — complete the sentence. Read the Proposition argument and finish it.
Proposition argument (from Part One)
"Schools have a duty of care to their students. When online harm originates in private messages, the school is the first institution capable of early intervention. Monitoring is therefore the fulfilment of a duty schools already hold."
That argument only works if you accept that…
Don't argue against it. Just name what has to be true for it to work.
Now here is how that move looks when fully executed:
ASS
The Proposition's entire argument rests on an assumption they never stated: that schools' duty of care extends into students' private digital lives — off-campus, out-of-hours, in spaces that have nothing to do with the school.
→
We reject that assumption. Duty of care is contextual. A school is responsible for what happens on its premises and under its supervision. Extending that duty into private communication is not protecting students — it is redefining what a school is.
→
If we accept the Proposition's logic, the school's jurisdiction has no limit. Why not monitor private conversations in bedrooms? Why not GPS-track students after school? The answer is: because those spaces belong to the student and their family, not the institution. Private social media is no different.
→
The Proposition is not making an argument about monitoring. They are making an argument about institutional reach — and they haven't defended it, because they assumed we'd accept it. We don't.
Same move, different argument. Complete the sentence — then attack it.
Opposition argument
"Young people have the right to a private space to develop their identity without institutional oversight. Social media is that space. Monitoring it destroys the only zone of freedom young people have."
What is this argument assuming about what social media actually is as a space? Is that assumption true?
Now ask it about your own argument
What does your Part One argument need to be true in order to work? Find that assumption before Round 2 — because the other side might find it first.
⏱ 12–15 min
Motion — continued from Part One
This House Believes that schools should monitor students' private social media to prevent harm
Proposition — YES
Opposition — NO
The Switch — mandatory, no prep
Switch sides. 60 seconds.
You defend the case you spent Part One destroying. Frame-breaking is in play. Use it.
1 min
Switch prep
Sides switch. 60 seconds only. Think about the assumption underneath the argument you heard in Part One.
90 sec
New Prop opens
Former Opposition argues for the motion. Frame-breaking allowed — and expected.
90 sec
New Opp opens
Former Proposition argues against. PEEL alone won't be enough now.
3 min
Open debate
Open floor. Frame-breaking, rebuttal, POIs all in play.
1 min
Close
Each side: one closing sentence. No new arguments.
AI Twist — introduce mid-debate if it stalls
"Monitoring is carried out entirely by AI — no teacher ever reads a message." 60 seconds to adapt. Safety vs privacy becomes automation vs judgement. Neither side's original case survives intact.
⏱ 5 min
Debate tests positions, not just people. Two lessons in: what actually changed?
On frame-breaking
Did anyone successfully break the frame in Round 2? What was the assumption they named?
On the switch
Was it harder to argue your switched side, or easier — now that you'd heard the other side's argument for a full lesson?
On persuasion
Which argument — across both lessons — was the hardest to answer? What made it land?
Exit question
Safety or privacy? After arguing both sides across two lessons — where do you actually stand, and did anything shift?