Debate motion Courtroom
The vending machine kept the coins on purpose
You put in the coins, pressed the button, and got nothing. In this fictional case, the prosecution argues the vending machine kept the money deliberately. The defence says machines break, jam, and malfunction without any intent. The debate turns on whether a machine can act on purpose, and who is responsible when design and greed blur together.
FOR Argue that the motion is right.
AGAINST Argue that the motion is wrong.
Arguments FOR
- The machine accepted the coins instantly but refused to deliver the snack. It worked perfectly when taking money and failed only when giving something back.
- It has done this repeatedly to many customers. A pattern of keeping coins suggests the machine is designed or set up to profit from failures.
- There is no refund button that actually works. A machine built without a fair way to return money is keeping it by design.
- Its owners benefit from every jammed snack and lost coin. When a system profits from failure, that failure starts to look intentional.
Arguments AGAINST
- Machines do not have intentions. A jammed coin or stuck snack is a malfunction, not a decision.
- Vending machines are complex and often poorly maintained. Breakdowns happen because of age and wear, not because of a plan.
- The customer may have inserted damaged or foreign coins that the machine could not read. That is not theft; it is a mismatch.
- Blaming the machine distracts from the real solution, which is better maintenance and refund systems. Nobody built a robot criminal.
Sample openers
FORMembers of the jury, this machine works perfectly at one thing only: taking your money. Everything else is an act.
AGAINSTMy client is a fridge with buttons. It cannot want your coins. It cannot want anything at all.
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 intent argument?
The prosecution can shift the focus from the machine's mind to its design: if it is built so that failures favour the owner, the purpose is built in. The defence can reply that bad design is negligence, not intent.
How do I win the jury on this motion?
Define on purpose carefully. Use relatable experiences like pressing the coin return again and again. Jurors reward humour, sharp logic, and rebuttals. Avoid claiming real company practices or numbers you cannot prove.
Who is this motion for?
It suits students, streams, and parties. It is funny but raises a smart question about responsibility in automated systems, which makes it great for technology lessons too.