Jump to content

Debate Speech Making


joeking

Recommended Posts

Familiar with the World Schools' Style format of debate? I wanted to know what you've found effective so far as writing speeches are concerned.

How would you construct your speech and make it organized with rebuttals and arguments? Would you "flow" the debate (drawing out columns and writing arguments as the debate evolves) or would you do something else ...? I've been using flashcards all this while and I haven't gotten my speeches to being as organized as I would want them to be. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! I'm familiar with the World Schools' debating format (I did it in Australia), so hopefully I can provide some useful advice.

In terms of how to organise a speech, I think it really, really depends on which speaking position you end up with. In general, I would say that you should be writing out your speech in dot points rather than full sentences and have a strong introductory and concluding sentence summarising why your side is right. In terms of flashcards/paper, I think that's a matter of personal preference - flashcards may be easier to hold, but I personally find paper easier to visualise all my points and know where I am up to in a speech. I think that usually in competitive debates at high school, the norm is for flashcards - so see what the preferences are for the situation you're in.

In terms of rebuttal generally, I would say that you should be organising your rebuttal into 2 or 3 thematic issues - then group all the points in the debate and your multiple responses underneath those issues. I think that in terms of how to format the specific rebuttal under these issues, that at first response (so 1st Neg/2nd Aff) there's probably little need to map out the flow of arguments in columns, but it may help to have columns showing the evolution of arguments once you reach 3rd speaker - and then add your own responses after summarising that flow. I'd say that for 1st Neg/2nd Aff that rebuttal should be about 3-4 minutes, whereas for 2nd Neg it should be longer at 4 (maybe even 5) minutes.

As to how to organise arguments, I would say that it's really important to have clear allocations, signposting and numbering during substantive. So, after rebuttal is over, say that you are now moving onto substantive and list the arguments you will make in your speech. Then, when giving your substantive arguments, I would recommend numbering the sub-arguments under each point. If you find it difficult to strictly number your sub-arguments, then just use clear linking words such as thus or therefore between the links of your reasoning. Also, never underestimate the value of having some pauses - they add gravitas, and can help indicate a break and transition in your speech. And in terms of taking POIs, definitely accept them between your arguments (or between your rebuttal and substantive), so they don't break up the flow of your speech.

The above generally applies to 1st Neg and 2nd speakers. 1st Aff requires a longer introduction and a model (or outlining the criteria to be proven in an empirical debate) as well. Meanwhile, 3rd speakers have a different task altogether - I would say that the most effective structure would be to do the speech as an extended version of rebuttal with 2 or 3 issues. At the end of an issue in the speech, there should be some level of summary - but not too much, as that's left to reply speakers.

Reply speeches are where I think that the strategy you mentioned of writing out how the different arguments for a point have evolved throughout a debate is most useful. Since you can't add any rebuttal or new material strictly speaking, you simply need to give a summary of how all the major points of the debate have developed, hopefully in favour of your team. And again, I would suggest structuring the speech in terms of 2 issues or questions that your team should win to win the debate. Reply speeches don't necessarily need to have as much material or pre-planning (and it really shouldn't be written before any of the 3rd speakers speak) given that they should adopt a more contemplative manner.

Otherwise, whilst the 'method' of a debate is worth 20/100 in scoring, I would probably say that you don't need to worry too much about it insofar as the rebuttal and arguments you are making are clearly organised so that an adjudicator can figure out how many points you are making and when.

Finally, if you want more advice about World Schools' debating, I think that there's quite a lot of written stuff online, and even debates to watch. Whilst it may seem painful to do more research, it might provide more insight into how others structure their speech.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! I'm familiar with the World Schools' debating format (I did it in Australia), so hopefully I can provide some useful advice.

In terms of how to organise a speech, I think it really, really depends on which speaking position you end up with. In general, I would say that you should be writing out your speech in dot points rather than full sentences and have a strong introductory and concluding sentence summarising why your side is right. In terms of flashcards/paper, I think that's a matter of personal preference - flashcards may be easier to hold, but I personally find paper easier to visualise all my points and know where I am up to in a speech. I think that usually in competitive debates at high school, the norm is for flashcards - so see what the preferences are for the situation you're in.

In terms of rebuttal generally, I would say that you should be organising your rebuttal into 2 or 3 thematic issues - then group all the points in the debate and your multiple responses underneath those issues. I think that in terms of how to format the specific rebuttal under these issues, that at first response (so 1st Neg/2nd Aff) there's probably little need to map out the flow of arguments in columns, but it may help to have columns showing the evolution of arguments once you reach 3rd speaker - and then add your own responses after summarising that flow. I'd say that for 1st Neg/2nd Aff that rebuttal should be about 3-4 minutes, whereas for 2nd Neg it should be longer at 4 (maybe even 5) minutes.

As to how to organise arguments, I would say that it's really important to have clear allocations, signposting and numbering during substantive. So, after rebuttal is over, say that you are now moving onto substantive and list the arguments you will make in your speech. Then, when giving your substantive arguments, I would recommend numbering the sub-arguments under each point. If you find it difficult to strictly number your sub-arguments, then just use clear linking words such as thus or therefore between the links of your reasoning. Also, never underestimate the value of having some pauses - they add gravitas, and can help indicate a break and transition in your speech. And in terms of taking POIs, definitely accept them between your arguments (or between your rebuttal and substantive), so they don't break up the flow of your speech.

The above generally applies to 1st Neg and 2nd speakers. 1st Aff requires a longer introduction and a model (or outlining the criteria to be proven in an empirical debate) as well. Meanwhile, 3rd speakers have a different task altogether - I would say that the most effective structure would be to do the speech as an extended version of rebuttal with 2 or 3 issues. At the end of an issue in the speech, there should be some level of summary - but not too much, as that's left to reply speakers.

Reply speeches are where I think that the strategy you mentioned of writing out how the different arguments for a point have evolved throughout a debate is most useful. Since you can't add any rebuttal or new material strictly speaking, you simply need to give a summary of how all the major points of the debate have developed, hopefully in favour of your team. And again, I would suggest structuring the speech in terms of 2 issues or questions that your team should win to win the debate. Reply speeches don't necessarily need to have as much material or pre-planning (and it really shouldn't be written before any of the 3rd speakers speak) given that they should adopt a more contemplative manner.

Otherwise, whilst the 'method' of a debate is worth 20/100 in scoring, I would probably say that you don't need to worry too much about it insofar as the rebuttal and arguments you are making are clearly organised so that an adjudicator can figure out how many points you are making and when.

Finally, if you want more advice about World Schools' debating, I think that there's quite a lot of written stuff online, and even debates to watch. Whilst it may seem painful to do more research, it might provide more insight into how others structure their speech.

Well, I am an avid MUNner. And the description above had some pretty helpful tips that are sure to help me in future. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey! I'm familiar with the World Schools' debating format (I did it in Australia), so hopefully I can provide some useful advice.

In terms of how to organise a speech, I think it really, really depends on which speaking position you end up with. In general, I would say that you should be writing out your speech in dot points rather than full sentences and have a strong introductory and concluding sentence summarising why your side is right. In terms of flashcards/paper, I think that's a matter of personal preference - flashcards may be easier to hold, but I personally find paper easier to visualise all my points and know where I am up to in a speech. I think that usually in competitive debates at high school, the norm is for flashcards - so see what the preferences are for the situation you're in.

In terms of rebuttal generally, I would say that you should be organising your rebuttal into 2 or 3 thematic issues - then group all the points in the debate and your multiple responses underneath those issues. I think that in terms of how to format the specific rebuttal under these issues, that at first response (so 1st Neg/2nd Aff) there's probably little need to map out the flow of arguments in columns, but it may help to have columns showing the evolution of arguments once you reach 3rd speaker - and then add your own responses after summarising that flow. I'd say that for 1st Neg/2nd Aff that rebuttal should be about 3-4 minutes, whereas for 2nd Neg it should be longer at 4 (maybe even 5) minutes.

As to how to organise arguments, I would say that it's really important to have clear allocations, signposting and numbering during substantive. So, after rebuttal is over, say that you are now moving onto substantive and list the arguments you will make in your speech. Then, when giving your substantive arguments, I would recommend numbering the sub-arguments under each point. If you find it difficult to strictly number your sub-arguments, then just use clear linking words such as thus or therefore between the links of your reasoning. Also, never underestimate the value of having some pauses - they add gravitas, and can help indicate a break and transition in your speech. And in terms of taking POIs, definitely accept them between your arguments (or between your rebuttal and substantive), so they don't break up the flow of your speech.

The above generally applies to 1st Neg and 2nd speakers. 1st Aff requires a longer introduction and a model (or outlining the criteria to be proven in an empirical debate) as well. Meanwhile, 3rd speakers have a different task altogether - I would say that the most effective structure would be to do the speech as an extended version of rebuttal with 2 or 3 issues. At the end of an issue in the speech, there should be some level of summary - but not too much, as that's left to reply speakers.

Reply speeches are where I think that the strategy you mentioned of writing out how the different arguments for a point have evolved throughout a debate is most useful. Since you can't add any rebuttal or new material strictly speaking, you simply need to give a summary of how all the major points of the debate have developed, hopefully in favour of your team. And again, I would suggest structuring the speech in terms of 2 issues or questions that your team should win to win the debate. Reply speeches don't necessarily need to have as much material or pre-planning (and it really shouldn't be written before any of the 3rd speakers speak) given that they should adopt a more contemplative manner.

Otherwise, whilst the 'method' of a debate is worth 20/100 in scoring, I would probably say that you don't need to worry too much about it insofar as the rebuttal and arguments you are making are clearly organised so that an adjudicator can figure out how many points you are making and when.

Finally, if you want more advice about World Schools' debating, I think that there's quite a lot of written stuff online, and even debates to watch. Whilst it may seem painful to do more research, it might provide more insight into how others structure their speech.

Well, I am an avid MUNner. And the description above had some pretty helpful tips that are sure to help me in future. :D

I enjoyed MUN too, even though it gets quite hectic at times! Just keep in mind though that the above advice I gave isn't geared towards MUN, it's a bit specific to the World Schools style of debating. Regardless, I hope that my tips do end up being useful for you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is geared towards World Schools style, there are certain rebuttal tips and speech making tips you gave great for the GSL. And sure it is useful. Hope you do enjoy MUN more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...