@ BETTER DEBATE MANUAL
Thinking and Speaking a Better World
There are two first speeches, namely, proposition's and opposition's first speech. As they have to fulfill different roles, their structure and content differs. WSDC (somewhat informal) rules specify some of the requirements each of the speeches must meet. Proposition's first speech must contain positive material, in other words, arguments in favor of the motion. It must introduce the case line and sign post any other positive material coming in the later speeches. Opposition's first speech must provide a response on the positive material brought forward, in other words, negate the arguments of the first proposition speaker. In addition to that it must also introduce opposition's case line and bring in opposition's own positive material going against the motion, which, in content, ideally differs from what has been thus far said during the negation. Long story short, 1st prop. prepares the ground for the debate and introduces positive material in favor of the motion, 1st opp. provides a response to 1st prop. and it itself introduces opp.'s own positive material arguing against the motion. Now, let's explain this in a bit more detail. I think the best way to do it is to go through the speeches chronologically.
Opening the Debate
First Speeches
The First Proposition Speech
As you know, you have 8 minutes you can use. Since 1st prop. is starting the debate, its introduction is going to be the longest. I would say you spend 1 to 2 minutes on the introduction. What you should say in the introduction differs in regards to the type of the motion you're debating. However, in all cases you have to frame the debate. I would say there are five distinct constitutive elements of framing. These are i) stating definition and/or providing factual data if necessary, ii) stating the issue of this debate (in other words, explicating the problem
Before moving on a short explanation of particular points might be useful. Point 'ii)' is more useful when debating policy motions (when the motion proposes a change in the status quo) and less when debating evaluative motions. If the motion wants you to argue in favor of a policy of positive discrimination, for example, you should explain what is the wrong that the motion is addressing. In other words, explain what sort of injustice, wrong or harm is the motion addressing and why is it important. Point 'iii)' is not difficult to make, it might be useful to think of a case line as one sentence which explains the core of your case, that is, the point of all the arguments you will present. Point 'iv)' is perhaps slightly more difficult. The burden of the debate is that, which must be fulfilled in order for one team to win the debate 'on content'. Sometimes people speak of a criterion rather than a burden of the debate, which can be misleading, as usually fulfillment of burden is the criterion upon which to judge the debate. However, an example where proposition's burden is be fulfilled would be a debate where they manage to show that the proposed policy solves the addressed issue and is in general good for the majority of stakeholders.
Next step for the 1st prop. speech is to tell the arguments. Ideally 1st prop. speech has two arguments, ideally you spend around three minutes explaining each one. Start with the most important one and finish with the least important one. Try to avoid having so-called 'filler' arguments, that is arguments not really relevant to your case, but are there just to make the quota of three arguments per proposition case. It's very important that you link your arguments back to the burden you set and back to the motion itself. Don't let them hanging around in the air, nail them down. After you've gone through the arguments there's nothing much left to do. It's time for a nice conclusion where you sum up your speech. It is good if in the end of your speech you remind the judge of what burden the opposing team must fulfil so that they're not able to change the grounds on which you're debating.
The First Opposition Speech
The opposition's first speech contains basically all the elements of the 1st prop. speech. However, they do not follow in the same order. In the introduction part you have to do most of the five points 1st prop did. However, if you agree with the i) definitions of crucial words in the motion, ii) the issue of the debate as presented by the proposition, iv) the burden as set by the proposition, and possibly v) the plan as presented by the prop. side, you can ignore those points. If, however, you disagree with any of the elements of framing, you should say it as
After the introduction you touch the arguments provided by the 1st prop. Ideally your negation is structured in 2 to 5 points. Each point should be a coherent response to another point talked about by the proposition. Points of negation don't have to necessarily correspond to the structure of argumentation through which the proposition has conveyed their ideas. If you feel like 1st prop. has talked about four separate points, but has only introduces two arguments, respond to each of the four point separately.
Note that you can also start your speech with negation and explain your case line later on, before you move on to your positive material. However, for most of the debates I would say having a proper introduction in the beginning is better.
Next is the argumentation. Ideally you introduced one, the most important argument opposition team has and spend at least 3 to 4 minutes explaining it. After you've gone through the argument there's nothing much left to do. It's time for a nice conclusion where you sum up your speech. Note that summing up your speech should not consist of just restating what you've already said. I think it's best if you link main points of negation and argumentation back to the motion itself, if you feel like you haven't done so well enough during the speech.
Finally...
In the end keep in mind that you can always improvise the structure of your speech, as long as it makes sense to you and everyone else in the room. Let this entry be a set of guidelines you can follow. However, if you feel like structuring your speech in a different way give it a try and see if it works.
contained within the motion), iii) providing your team's general take on the debate and sign posting the arguments, in other words, explaining your case line and, lastly, iv) analyzing the burden of the debate. Additionally, if the motion requires you to have some sort of a plan (e.g. motions starting with 'This House Would') you should state it in the introduction. The order in which you should go through these for our five points is not fixed, however, I would recommend you go through them in the same order as I did.
soon as possible, preferably already in the PoI during the 1st prop. speech. But if you do that, don't forget to explain it again in your speech. If you feel that proposition hasn't explained some of the five points you can do that yourself or you can just point out that they have failed to frame the debate sufficiently. For example, if proposition hasn't told us what is the issue of the debate, and it is still not clear what exactly is the problem that we are debating about, point this out. However, newer pretend that you haven't understood the core issue of the debate. What you absolutely have to do, regardless of proposition's first speech, is to state your case line and explain your team's general take on the motion.