Member Speeches 101: The absolute basics
N.B: This article is written for the novices I coach. If you're experienced, good or break at tournaments what's written below probably will be a waste of your time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member speech is no different form any other, your aim is to win and by the time you sit down you should have made it clear to the judges why you have done so. How?
Ways to win
Before you can improve your chances of winning, you need to know what makes you win. Assuming decent judging, you win in a member speech the same way you as you do in any other speech: by persuading the judge that the motion is good (prop) or bad(opp). Clash, engagement and other buzz words can all be useful but never forget than in the end you win based on persuasiveness. There are a few ways to do this.
- (Extension) Make an original claim.
- (Analysis Extension) Take a claim your first half already made and make it more persuasive
- (Rebuttal Extension) Take a claim your opponents made and make it less persuasive
1: Original claim/extension
I won't spend much time on this. If you can come up with a persuasive and original extension, deliver it in your speech. If you can't, consider the following
- Prep Time
- Actor Analysis
- Red Teaming
- Case Studies
- Use as a way of generating insights and arguments. Be wary of using as an extension.
- Reframing
- Outside of Debating
- Read broadly
- Watch high level debates
- Make a case file
Even with these techniques, in good rooms you will often be without an original extension as all reasonable material will be covered to some extent by first half.
2: Rebuttal/Analysis extensions
Regarding rebuttal and analysis extensions, a prerequisite for doing either well is understanding how arguments work and, most importantly, what makes an argument persuasive. All arguments make a claim and their persuasiveness rests entirely on how far that claim is true and important.
Persuasiveness = Truth (0% - 100%) * Importance
A claim can be unlikely to be true but still be highly important if true and hence persuasive. For example the claim that giving anti-missile defense to South Korea could lead to nuclear war with the north. With this basic understanding of how arguments work, it should be clear that there are two avenues of extending on first half arguments or rebutting opposing teams arguments: truth and importance. Whether rebutting or extending on an argument, always make sure you know whether you are attacking/reinforcing the truth, importance or both*. If it's not absolutely clear which your doing, explicitly say it to the judges.
Rebuttal
Don't undervalue rebuttal. Rebuttal can win you debates. Whether your only extension is rebuttal or your rebuttal stands alongside your extension, there are a few things to remember.
- Discrete rebuttal done at the start of you speech can be powerful and debate winning. Don't forget to do it.
- When you rebut a claim, explain why that's claims destruction is significant for the debate. Even saying "This means that we have taken out a major part of the gov/opp case and we are the only team to have done so" is better than simply moving on.
- Note: The worse a judge is the more likely they are to undervalue rebuttal. When in sub-straights rooms or with unknown judges, take special care to emphasis your rebuttals importance.
- If a piece of rebuttal takes more than a minute to make and is significantly damaging, feel free to label it as an extension. Rebuttal extensions are perfectly acceptable.
Analysis
When doing an analysis extension, you're trying to take a claim already made and make it significantly more persuasive. You can do this either by making it more true or more important. There are a few things to bear in mind:
- You don't have to do the argument "better" than your first half. Even if you can't outdo your opening, provided you have made some significant contribution to the persuasiveness of their argument you do have an extension and it could be enough to beat other teams in the debate. A slightly weaker extension combined with better rebuttal can let you beat first half.
- You should be clear that your extension is not entirely new. Trying to hoodwink judges by pretending your entirely original is seldom successful.
- Be clear on what analytical links you're making that first half didn't and why they significantly enhance truth/importance or overcome major attacks from opposing teams. For example "First half's case rested on the claim that China is militaristic and will behave aggressive in the future, our analysis of Chinese culture, political incentives and bureaucratic structures shows why this is true"
- Be sure that the analytical links you are reinforcing/making are not obvious. Analyzing why murder/genocide are bad is not persuasive, even if first half missed the analysis.
Member discussion