Debate motion Courtroom
The roommate is guilty of eating the last cookie
The cookie jar is empty, and only two people live in the flat. In this fictional case, the prosecution argues the roommate ate the last cookie. The defence says there is no proof and that suspicion is not guilt. The debate turns on circumstantial evidence, shared spaces, and how far you can trust a roommate.
FOR Argue that the motion is right.
AGAINST Argue that the motion is wrong.
Arguments FOR
- The jar still held one cookie when the roommate came home, and it was empty after they went to bed. Nobody else had access to the kitchen that night.
- The roommate has a history: missing milk, vanished cheese, and a suspicious lack of cookies in the past. Patterns of behaviour matter.
- Chocolate crumbs were found on the sofa where the roommate watched television. The evidence leads straight from the jar to the defendant.
- When asked directly, the roommate changed the subject and avoided eye contact. Innocent people usually deny clearly instead of dodging.
Arguments AGAINST
- There is no direct evidence. Nobody saw the roommate eat the cookie, and suspicion alone cannot prove guilt.
- The accuser might have eaten it themselves and forgotten. People often lose track of how many snacks they have had.
- Guests, partners, or even pets could have taken it. A shared home has many possible suspects, not just the obvious one.
- Crumbs on the sofa prove someone ate a cookie at some point, not that it was the last one or that it happened that night.
Sample openers
FORThe jar was full. The roommate was home. The jar is empty. Members of the jury, the crumbs do not lie.
AGAINSTMy client is accused because they live here. By that logic, the accuser is guilty too.
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 crumbs argument?
The defence should argue that crumbs show cookie eating in general, not the specific crime. Ask when they appeared and whose they are. The prosecution can respond by linking several small clues, because evidence that is weak alone can be strong together.
How do I win the jury on this motion?
Present a clear timeline of the fictional evening and keep it consistent. Jurors love detective-style reasoning and humour. Rebut the other side's evidence directly, and avoid inventing new facts at the last second to escape a good point.
Is this good for students?
Very good. It is relatable for anyone who shares a home, and it teaches the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence in a playful way on Contradicto.