In this series titled ‘Myths & Misconceptions’, we will address common thoughts, expectations, and ideas which people have about speaker roles that aren’t true.
In this article, we’ll be looking at the third speaker.
‘Rebuttal and Points of Clash are not the same‘
As the third speaker, a large section of your speech will be dedicated to attacking the other team’s points. However, many third speakers confuse this and assume that these attacks only take place in the form of rebuttal. This ends up with third speakers launching a flurry of attacks that aren’t connected well. This scatter-gun approach will seem chaotic to judges and may even hurt the quality of your team’s argument.
The best way to help resolve this issue, and improve the cohesiveness of your attacks is to differentiate between rebuttal and point of clash.
Rebuttal is used for more immediate attacks – targeting individual points. If an opposing speaker states an incorrect fact or makes a weak standalone argument, you can use your rebuttal to correct this.
Points of Clash are for more substantive analysis. Through points of clash, you can attack the more collective arguments of the opposition instead of just standalone points. Refer to our previous article on Points of Clash for more information.
‘Just attack the other side and summarise your team’s points’
Yes, third speakers attack arguments proposed by opposing teams. Yes, third speakers summarise the arguments that their team put forward. That being said, the role of a third speaker is not as simple as ‘just attack and summarise’, which is what many people often reduce it to. Excellent third speakers understand that both of these tasks should not be separated, but integrated. Instead of simply deconstructing the other team’s points and then reinforcing their own separately, third speakers should strive to combine them. This can be done when talking about points of clash. Here is an example of how this strategy works:
‘In our debate so far, one point of clash was X. About X, the opposing team has stated A, which is incorrect because of…. We have stated B, which is correct due to…. Therefore, B wins against A and our team has won this point of clash.’
By using this logic, you are able to tie your attack and your defence neatly together, which is much more effective than doing them separately.
‘The more aggressive the better‘
Lots of third speakers feel that they need to be extremely aggressive during their speeches. Although third-speaker speeches can be combative by nature, you need to be aware to not cross any lines. Often, being loud and forceful is rude to judges. Consider how effective it can be if you slow down and keep a calm and collected tone. By speaking this way, you may be able to explain your points with more control and effectiveness.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating technique through a certain perspective.
Produced by Nikola Pandurovic (Chief Editor at DebatePro)
DebatePro 