Debate motion Courtroom
The dog really did eat the homework
It is the oldest excuse in school history, and now it goes on trial. In this fictional case, the prosecution argues the dog truly ate the homework, while the defence argues the dog is being framed by a student who never did it. The debate turns on evidence, motive, and how much benefit of the doubt an excuse deserves.
FOR Argue that the motion is right.
AGAINST Argue that the motion is wrong.
Arguments FOR
- Dogs chew paper all the time. Anyone who has owned a puppy knows that shoes, post, and school books are all fair game, so the story is entirely believable.
- The homework was left on a low table near the dog's bed, and the dog had been alone all afternoon. Opportunity and temptation were both present.
- Torn scraps, damp corners, and a guilty-looking dog were found at the scene. When the physical evidence fits the story, the court should accept it.
- An excuse becoming a cliché does not make it false. Some dogs really do eat homework, and refusing to believe it punishes honest students for others' lies.
Arguments AGAINST
- This is the most famous made-up excuse ever. The defence asks the court why a student would choose such an unbelievable story unless they had nothing better.
- There is no proof the homework existed at all. No teacher saw a draft, no parent remembers it, and no scraps show any actual answers.
- Dogs chew interesting things that smell of food or people. A dull worksheet is far less tempting than the shoes and socks left untouched nearby.
- The dog cannot speak in its own defence. Blaming someone who cannot answer back is unfair, and the court should not convict without real evidence.
Sample openers
FORMembers of the jury, the excuse is old, but so are dogs. And dogs have been eating paper for a very long time.
AGAINSTThe only thing this dog is guilty of is being the easiest suspect in the house to blame.
How a match plays
- Two sides. One debater argues FOR the motion and the other AGAINST, taking turns at two podiums: three rounds, or five in a full match.
- Eleven AI jurors. Each cares about something different, and some start out leaning one way. They switch sides as your arguments land. Win eight of them, or the final verdict.
- Your voice. When your turn starts, argue out loud, and the jury reacts to what you actually said. No mic? Type instead.
- Vera or a friend. Vera, our AI debater, takes the other side any time. Or send a friend a private code and argue it out live.
Questions
What is the strongest rebuttal to the cliché argument?
The prosecution should say that a cliché exists because the event happens. Many clichés start from truth. The defence can reply that a famous excuse attracts liars, so the burden of proof must be higher, not lower. Whoever controls the burden of proof usually wins.
How do I win the jury on this motion?
Treat it like a real trial. Invent evidence that fits the fictional case and present it clearly, but do not claim real statistics. Jurors reward courtroom drama, humour, and direct rebuttals. Ending with a clear verdict request helps.
Is this good for a classroom?
It is perfect. Students love putting a dog on trial, and the motion teaches evidence, burden of proof, and persuasion. Teachers can use it to introduce how courts work in a fun, low-stakes way.