In this series titled ‘Myths & Misconceptions’, we will address the myths surrounding each speaker role. In this article, we’ll be looking at Speaker 2.
Similar to what we discussed in the previous article: many 2nd speakers leave the role of rebuttal to 3rd speakers. However, we must clarify that rebuttal is one of the most important components to a 2nd speaker’s speech. Opening your speech with rebuttal puts pressure on the opposing team while also reaffirming the strength and composure of your side.
‘Don’t waste time on what your first speaker said’
Time is a scarce resource in debating, and though we encourage you to be wary of it, do not let yourself be scared by it. Younger debaters have a much more panicked attitude towards time in debates, and therefore feel that need to ration all their points. This may result in what can, in the big picture, look like a disconnected and scattered team argument.
Strong second speakers are able to take the initial point mentioned by their first speaker and build on it, adding different threads of logic, different interpretations, or even new evidence to help prove the argument. Either way, the key point to take away is to follow up on your first speaker.
‘Say all your team’s points’
Similarly to the last point, trying to stuff as many points as you can into your speech will not earn you more credit. The phrase ‘quality over quantity’ is most true in this scenario. Try and break up your argument into different themes and key concepts, and start working from there. Breaking one point up into several threads of reasoning is much more credible and persuasive than several points explained in less detailed ways.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating techniquethrough a certain perspective.
Produced by Nikola Pandurovic (Chief Editor at DebatePro)
In this series titled ‘Myths & Misconceptions’, we will address common thoughts, expectations, and ideas that people have about their speaker roles which aren’t actually true. In this article, we’ll be looking at the first speaker.
‘Define the Motion’
There exists a widespread idea that all first speakers are required to ‘define the motion’ as per the dictionary meaning. This should not be the main intention because it is better to explain your team’s interpretation of the motion. In your preparation, you should strive to deconstruct the motion, and explore the ideal strategic approach.
Let’s look at a mock motion:
THR the influence of traditional masculinity on society.
With motions of this sort, the debate is really won or lost in how you approach the motion itself. How would you define ‘traditional masculinity’? Team Proposition may associate ‘traditional masculinity’ with ‘toxic masculinity’. Team Opposition, on the other hand, would argue that those two ideas are independent from each other. Another possible definition to explore: what is society?
As you can see, there is great potential in expanding your debate just by taking more time to analyse and unpick the motion.
‘Don’t rebut’
Again, a common belief is that first speakers should leave all their rebuttal to the second or third speakers. This is simply incorrect and could be detrimental to your team’s performance. If Team Proposition’s first speaker makes a critical error, the Opposition first speaker should use their speech as an opportunity to strike back and regain momentum. As the adage goes ‘A lie told too many times becomes the truth’; and in this way, you should not let your opponent repeat false statements without calling them out.
‘Don’t mention the best point’
Many first speakers are intimidated to discuss the strong arguments as they think they are stealing the job of the second speaker. We believe the first speaker should mention the most important point in their team’s case. Thus, they are able to set the tone for the debate and provide a platform for their second speaker to use.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating technique and not offer any views or stance on the content of the aforementioned debate/motion.
Produced by Nikola Pandurovic (Chief Editor at DebatePro)
The question of ‘Style vs Substance’ is central in debating. What sets apart great debaters is their ability to strike a balance between those two concepts. It is important to be able to provide a strong, sophisticated speech while also decorating them with your own personal touch.
Working and developing the content of your speeches is easy to learn but hard to master. Refining the substance of your speeches is very closely tied to refining your knowledge of the speaker roles. Each speaker role, from 1st to reply, has specific goals and strategies to achieve and implement. At DebatePro, we offer various resources and guides for improving your skill set in your speaker roles. Maintaining a concise structure in your speeches is also vital, as it will keep it engaging and clear throughout.
Style:
Learning how to thread your own charm and charisma is something which you develop only through experience. The more you debate, the more you realise what works for you, and the easier it is for you to find and channel your voice. The great advantage of a speaker who knows how to maximise their style is how unique and memorable their speech becomes. Substance is, of course, the most important component of your speech, but marrying a well written speech with unique style is what differentiates you from the others.
Produced by Nikola Pandurovic (Chief Editor at DebatePro)
Sometimes we get so drawn into analyzing our jobs as debaters, we forget how prevalent debating is in the real-world. From arguments on television to discussions at home, we are surrounded by debate. Because of this, we feel it is important for all debaters to extend their skills outside the traditional WSDC format. At its simplest, debating is about explaining your ideas, and the best way for you to master that skill is by exploring how it is done in different situations.
One of the most popular demonstrations of debating is in the US Presidential debates. In this article we will be dissecting a brief point of clash during the 2012 debates. Particularly, we will look at how Mitt Romney was able to use statistical evidence to form a point, and how Barack Obama efficiently conducted rebuttal.
Video Credit to ABC News
Romney:
‘Our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917’ (4:12)
Mitt Romney presents a point as to why military spending should increase. He justifies it using a statistic which shows how the US military is the smallest it has been in almost a hundred years. Romney leads the audience to believe that ‘the smallest army’ also means ‘the weakest army’, and hence military spending needs to be increased. By using such a data point to substantiate his argument, Romney looks to convince the audience.
There’s plenty for you to learn from this. Firstly, what’s important to note is that Romney does a solid job in developing his argument using statistics. Remember that whilst the debate may be between two sides of the house, there is a third party involved: the judge. At the end of the day your job is to convince the judge, not your opponent, that you’ve won. Rarely will judges be as well prepped in the motion as you, therefore, it is vital that you use simple and clear statistics in order to help paint the picture that you wish to paint.
Though there is nothing wrong with making a bold jump, the issues begin to surface if you make a jump that’s too big. Romney made a point and delivered it well, but the premise was based on something that Obama would soon rebut.
‘That’s unacceptable to me’ (4:23)
By using the pronoun ‘me’, Romney looks to personalise his argument and present himself as a figure of authority. In this way, he tries to win some credibility and trust with the American audience.
It may seem like a minor thing, but the effect of pronouns can be very powerful. If we look back at some of the iconic political quotes in American history, and you will find that many of them feature a deliberate use of a pronoun e.g. ‘I have a dream (Martin Luther King Jr.)’, ‘We choose to go to the moon (John F. Kennedy).’ Language is a very powerful tool, so maximise it.
Obama:
‘Not something that I proposed…It will not happen’ (5:08)
Romney appeared to falsely quote Obama in his speech, and the then President took almost no time to correct his opponent and clarify his own stance.
Very often in debating, you will face situations where your opponents may misquote or manipulate your argument. The absolute worst mistake you could make here is to not comment and hope the judge sees their error. You must affirmatively and confidently address this and clarify your stance to the judge. It may end up being a critical point that wins or loses you the debate.
‘Governor we have fewer horses and bayonets…’ (5:28)
Romney took a bold risk by using a statistic based on history. What Obama did well was not just be quick on his feet and refute his opponent’s argument, but articulate it in a concise and accessible manner.
Frequently, debaters treat rebuttal as a short task to do before their speeches. If you truly want to conduct a strong and effective rebuttal, you need to nurture it and develop it just as you would any other point. Don’t be afraid to go into depth.
‘When I sit down with the secretary of the Navy and the joint chiefs of staffs,’ (5:49)
In the same way that Romney tried to reach out to the audience by using personal pronouns, Obama does so too. Whilst Romney tries to gain credibility by stating that the topic at hand is important to him, Obama states how he has worked on the matter. Thus he shows himself to have a more developed understanding of the situation. He frames it in a manner which presents him as the more experienced candidate.
‘It just doesn’t work. We visited the website quite a bit, and it still doesn’t work’ (6:14)
Here, Obama makes a call-back to an earlier moment in the debate, when Romney asked the audience to visit his website to check the further details of his plan. The purpose of this line from Obama is purely flair, much like his ‘horses and bayonets’ line previously.
Using style and charisma in your speeches can be a very tight rope to walk, however, if you learn to deliver those lines at the right time, you will end with very memorable and powerful moments.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating technique and not offer any views or stance on the content of the aforementioned debate.
Speaker 2 begins powerfully by simplifying the underlying principle of the opposition’s case. He then refutes this premise through characterising their stance in a negative manner. The speaker then effectively proves the validity and strength of his own argument compared to the opposition’s ‘flawed’ premise.
After this refutation, he logically outlines his team’s three pronged constructive argument. By providing a clear structure, the speaker ensures that the adjudicator can follow his argument. This is an effective technique as it simplifies your team’s argument thus allowing for the audience and judge to better interact and understand your ideas. Regardless of the strength of your ideas and points, the judge has to always be able to follow what you are saying otherwise there is no use. Therefore, this is an important skill that all speakers should try to employ.
As stated in our article on the WSDC judging guideline, strategy accounts for 20 points in the judging criteria. During this speech, the second speaker demonstrates effective use of strategy by linking back to his team members’ previous arguments, and strengthening it by providing an alternate constructive argument on the same basic ideas. By linking your second speech to your team’s argument, you will be able to maximise your points in the judging criteria.
Disclaimer: This purpose of this article is solely to analyse debating technique and not offer any views or stance on the content of the aforementioned debate.
Certain formats of debate have the ability for speakers to be questioned and interjected during their speeches in the form of polite ‘Points of information’. These points are questions targeted at the speaker by the opposing team. This technique obliges the speaker to engage with the opposing point of view raised during their speech.
If your opponents are speaking and they discuss something that is untrue, you can respectfully raise your hand and say ‘point of information.’ The opponent can then choose whether to accept or decline it. If the speaker accepts your request, you can then ask a short, snappy question that aims to expose your opponent’s flaws and weaknesses. They can be asked at any point in time during the opponent’s speech, apart from the allocated protected time and reply speeches.
It is encouraged that a speaker accepts at least one POI during their speech. In addition, a team should wait a minimum of 15 seconds before asking their next POI to the speaker. This is an important part of debate etiquette which respects the speaker and allows them to frame their team’s argument without too much disruption. Certain judges will frown upon teams who ‘badger’ and ask too many POIs to the speaker as this can be construed as unfair. There is a fine balance that needs to be achieved which will come as you continue to gain experience.
POIs are very important for you to develop as a debater, because this allows you to develop a presence of mind and teaches you to think quickly on your feet. At the same time, they also learn to frame well-phrased arguments, both while asking and answering points of information, in a short period of time.
WSDC 2018 – England vs USA – Speaker 1 Proposition Analysis:
Speaker 1, the opener of a WSDC debate, is vital in setting the tone and structure of the rest of the debate. England’s speaker 1 in the debate began powerfully with a real life example that would resonate throughout the debate. This effortlessly flowed into his team stance, burden of proof and case division. It is this type of interesting introduction that deviates from the traditional structure of a 1st speech, providing a unique insight into his style. This unique approach may be something you consider incorporating into your own speech. The speaker uses imagery to convey the practical impacts of the motion, which is very effective in providing the judge with a visual image of the destructive consequences of implementing the policy.
Understanding the decorum of a debate can help debaters enhance their argumentation and delivery, as well as ensuring that you remain respectful to all participants and adjudicators.
One of the most important aspects of debate etiquette is to focus on attacking the ideas presented, rather than the people. Attacking an opponent on the personal level only weakens the argument. Instead, debaters should identify flaws in their opponents’ reasoning and call their logic into question.
Another element which is central to the success of the debate as a whole, is politeness. This can be in a variety of ways. For example, if the debater believes the opponent is wrong about a point, they should address this in a tactful manner. Instead of simply stating the opponent is wrong, students should explain why the opponents idea is flawed with substantial support. Politeness is also conveyed during communication with both the judge, and fellow debaters. It is essential to accept the judges final decision, compliments and criticism during the debate. If you are unhappy with the result of a debate, politely ask for the judges guidance on areas of improvement at the end – this will benefit you in the long-term as a debater!
Finally, as a debater you should use an appropriate tone of voice, maintain composure throughout the debate and avoid talking/bickering whilst another speaker is debating.
The World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) is a global competition for high school debaters. The championships take place each year in a different country, hosted by a national debating body. It is important to understand the judging criteria for this style of debate, to formulate an effective speech, and win the debate on the comparative. Each speaker in WSDC format, is judged based on 3 categories: Content (40 points), Style (40 points) and Strategy (20 points).
Content accounts for WHAT is being presented. It refers to the strength of the argument, and the material presented by the speaker on its own terms. This section assesses the quality of analysis, and the cohesive manner in which it is presented, as well as the evidence, examples and anecdotes used to support the points made. It also evaluates whether the speaker has an accurate grasp of opponents arguments, and quality of rebuttals presented.
Style accounts for HOW content is being presented. It covers the manner in which the speaker is presenting the argument, using language effectively, for example rhetorical tools. It emphasizes clarity, audience engagement and persuasion.
Strategy accounts for WHY content is being said. This looks at which arguments are being prioritized, and whether the team as a whole have identified and demonstrated an understanding of the relevant, critical arguments for each side. Consistency between team members, and the ability to respond to POI’s are all judged in this section.
The WSDC judging format is a holistic overview of the quality of individual speakers as well as an analysis of the team functioning as a unit. It rewards adaptability, teamwork and preparation. Having an awareness of these points whilst debating, will ensure success for you and your team!
These are the last speeches delivered in the debate. The speaking time for a reply speech is half the time of the regular speeches. A reply speech is usually delivered by either the 1st or 2nd speaker of the team.
What is the aim of a reply speech?
The aim of a reply speech is to provide each team a chance to consolidate and review the debate in a favourable light. A good reply speech analyses the main themes/points in the debate. There is no point in repeating what your team has said as you should be using the previously laid out points to show why you have won. You need to show why your arguments are more significant than the other team’s case.
What is one way that we can structure a reply speech?
Pick certain contentious points/themes to clarify and analyse
Assess what would happen in your world
Assess what would happen in their world
Tell the judge why the things that happen in your world are more significant/meaningful
This idea of ‘our world’ and ‘your world’ is a common technique that is used in reply speeches. This is because it ensures that the speaker is not just talking about their case but rather weighing it against the opposition.
General Reminders:
Make sure you have proven the burden of proof that was initially set by your 1st speaker. In addition, you need to ensure that you have strongly summarised your team’s case as you have the last word. It is your duty to make sure the debate is simplified and all possible rebuttal or flaws that were directed at your team have been handled.
A reply speech is a unique opportunity because it allows the speaker to approach the issue in a creative way. The structure that we endorse is a mere recommendation; if you feel that there is another way that suits you better, feel free to use what works for you.
This video covers some more ways a reply speech can be delivered. This video is not a product of DebatePro.
If you need any clarification, please feel free to email us at shrish.debatepro@gmail.com.
DebatePro 