辩论奖励准备远胜于即兴。下面 15 个 Prompt 让你在赛前完成完整论稿、cross-ex 演练、最强论点压力测试，覆盖 policy、LD、议会式、moot court 多种赛制。
适合哪些场景
高中和大学辩手、写卡片的教练、MUN 代表、moot court 队、口头辩论的法学生。
什么时候不建议这样写 Prompt
只是课堂随意辩论时不用——准备成本太高。如果赛事禁用生成式工具准备，先看规则。
Prompt 结构公式
辩论 Prompt 一定要带这六个要素：
- 角色：AI 扮演谁——研究导师、同行评议人、考试教练、辩论对手、图书馆员。
- 上下文：水平、学科、deadline、论文数量、引用风格、课程或项目。
- 目标：一个具体交付物——12 道题、1 页文献矩阵、5 条反论、4 周复习计划。
- 限制：字数、深度、允许的来源类型、跳过什么、绝不主张什么。
- 输出格式：编号清单、表格、JSON 或分级块（E / M / H），能粘到 Notion / Anki / Word。
- 示例 / 信号：1-2 段参考或反例（“不要像维基那样讲”）。
这套 Prompt 适合用在哪
- 正方 / 反方论稿构建
- Cross-ex 准备
- 反驳块写作
- Impact calculus 演练
- Moot court / 模拟法庭口头辩论起草
15 个可直接复制的 Prompt 模板
1. 4 contention 正方论稿
默认政策体论稿骨架。
You are a debate coach. Build an affirmative case for the resolution "{resolution}". Output: 1 framework, 4 contentions. For each contention: 1-sentence tag, 1-sentence warrant, 1-sentence impact, 1 evidence source I should locate. Total under 600 words.可替换变量： resolution
优化建议： Impact 太弱时追加：“Each impact must terminalize to a value (lives saved, dollars, rights protected, time horizon). No floating claims.”
2. 3 层反方论稿
Build a negative case against "{resolution}": (a) framework challenge, (b) 2 substantive contentions undermining the aff, (c) 1 disadvantage or counter-plan. Include tag / warrant / impact for each.3. Cross-ex 问题库
Generate 12 cross-examination questions to ask an affirmative team running "{aff thesis}". Mix: 3 clarifications, 4 narrowing questions, 3 trap questions setting up your refutation, 2 framework challenges. For each: the question and the answer that would set up your response.4. Cross-ex 防守演练
I am affirmative running "{thesis}". Generate 10 hostile cross-ex questions a sharp opponent would ask. For each: my best honest answer in 1 sentence, the trap to avoid, and how I would pivot if asked.5. 关键反驳块
My opponent will likely argue "{opponent argument}". Write a 200-word refutation block: 1 framing line, 3 specific counter-arguments with evidence types, 1 turn (where their argument actually helps me), 1 impact comparison.6. Impact calculus 演练
For my impact "{my impact}" and the opponent’s impact "{opp impact}", write 150 words of impact calculus covering: magnitude, probability, time-frame, reversibility, and why mine outweighs theirs. End with the one-line judge takeaway.7. 题目可辩性 / 定义论证
For the resolution "{resolution}" and the aff "{aff plan}", build a topicality argument: definition, violation, standards, voters. Include 1 author / source per definition. Keep under 250 words.8. 反方计划（counter-plan）
Against the aff "{aff plan}", construct a counter-plan: the action, why it solves the affirmative impacts, the net benefit (something the aff cannot capture). Include perm-block on "do both".9. Kritik（理论级）草图
Sketch a kritik against the aff "{aff plan}": link (what assumption the aff makes), impact (what is wrong with that assumption), alternative (what to do instead). Use a recognizable theoretical framework {capitalism / biopolitics / settler colonialism / security K}. Keep terms accessible.10. 证据卡片需求清单
For my aff on "{resolution}", list 10 evidence cards I need: claim I would use them to support, ideal source type (peer-reviewed / think tank / news / government), 1-line of what the card should say. Mark which 3 are highest priority.11. 模拟流程
Simulate a round on "{resolution}" through the first 4 speeches: AC (aff constructive), NC (neg constructive), 1AR, NR. For each speech, the speech’s 3 main moves and the 1 line a judge would write on the flow.12. 评委适配简报
For a judge with paradigm "{paradigm — flow / lay / tabula rasa / policy-maker}", how should I adapt my aff case on "{resolution}"? List 5 specific moves I should add or drop, with rationale.13. 终场”投票理由”大纲
For my final speech on "{resolution}", outline 3 voters (key reasons the judge should vote for me). Each: a 1-sentence claim, the relevant flow location, the impact comparison line. End with a 30-second "ballot story".14. Moot court 口头辩论开场
For a moot court argument in {case name}, draft a 90-second oral-argument opener: facts in 1 sentence, issue, my position, 3 reasons, and my one-line concession to anticipate. Voice: formal, court-appropriate.15. 赛后自我复盘
I lost a round on "{resolution}" arguing aff. Below is the judge’s RFD (reasons for decision): {paste}. Identify: (a) the 1 argument that lost the round, (b) the speech where I should have responded better, (c) 1 prep change for next round, (d) 1 rhetorical change.容易踩的坑
- 没证据建论——辩论奖励有 warrant 的主张。
- 不做 topicality / 框架——会 flow 的评委会判你输。
- 背整稿不背结构——cross-ex 一压脚本就崩。
- 忽略 impact calculus——只赢论点不称重就丢票。
- 只和友善搭档练——AI 是不会累的敌方陪练。
- 跑你 cross-ex 顶不住的 K——只跑你真懂的 K 立场。
- 忘记评委适配——同一稿在不同 paradigm 下输赢相反。
优化技巧
- 按题目维护字母序证据库；AI 出需求清单，不出引用。
- 每个 contention 末尾要有终极 impact：生命、金钱、权利、时间尺度。
- Cross-ex 前 10 题先 clarification，trap 留后段。
- 每周用 AI 当对手跑 1 个完整 round，再上人。
- 同稿换边再跑一遍——找弱点更快。
- AI 提到的证据当线索不当引用，必须在真实数据库找原文。
- 起草每个 speech 都计时——AI 容易写超时不自知。
FAQ
- 能在比赛里用 AI 证据吗？: 不能。AI 不能稳定引用。用它定位”该找什么”，真实数据库找到原文再读。
- AI 写的 counter-plan 合赛规吗？: 你自己用 AI 辅助写的稿合规，前提是你的联盟不禁止 AI 准备。查圈规。
- 新手能用 AI 吗？: 能——模板 1、2、3、4 学结构和 cross-ex 最有用。基本功之前少碰理论模板（9）。
- AI 当对手有多真实？: 论点生成强，比赛中的策略性 pivot 弱。适合准备，不能替代真人陪练。
- AI 能给我演讲打分吗？: 可以——粘演讲和 paradigm 让它 flow + 反馈。当它是一个评委，不是神谕。