@ BETTER DEBATE MANUAL
Thinking and Speaking a Better World
The reply speech is a 4 minute closing speech in WSDC format, delivered by either the 1st or the 2nd speaker of each team. Its purpose is not to bring in any new material, but to take a step back and rationally analyse the debate by weighing cases proposed by each side.
The general three-step model for making such evaluative statements is:
-
they say ...
-
we say ...
-
ours wins because ...
In terms of structuring these evaluations, reply speeches allow quite a lot of leeway, however, the structure needs to be clear. Reply speeches are usually divided in approximately 3 distinctive points. A clear structure is helpful especially because by the time the reply speech is delivered, judges have been attentive for quite some time – they have been presented with a lot of material and are likely starting to doze off. Making the reply speech as uncluttered as possible helps the judge focus on the points the team finds important and believes can win them the debate. A well-structured speech allows the speaker to make the decision for the judge. Given that the speech is only 4 minutes long, it must be succinct.
Wrapping It All Up
Reply Speeches
PROJECT VIDEO: Romanian coach and trainer Serban Pitic speaks about Reply Speeches in World Schools Debate Format at WSDA 2013
It is good to start off with a short introduction, pulling the judge's attention. The introduction can be a story, a description of status quo or the problem, your team-line, anything that is meaningful for the debate and highlights the team's strength. The next step is signposting, which directs both the judge and the speaker to the route the speech is about to take. Stating how many points there are and what they are about makes the speech easy to follow as one knows what to expect. The introduction and signposting together should take approximately 30s.
From here on, there are several ways in which the reply speech can be structured. Common to all is that the speaker must concentrate on points of clash. To identify clashes, it is useful to look back and ask what the debate was about and on what planes teams argued their cases. Points of clash are broad, incorporating what has been said throughout the debate on a specific point. Sometimes they can be predicted in advance and should be kept in mind before and during the debate, but reply speakers must be flexible as the speech must reflect what has actually been said, not what could have been said. The most important clash should be presented first. Clashes can be any 3 or so points on which the debate has occurred, however, there are some divisions that are regularly used.
One of them is dividing the debate by content, looking at principles and practicalities as separate points. This is especially useful for policy motions, where we ask ourselves whether we should and whether we can implement a proposal. Another way of structuring is referring back to the criteria, if some have been set in the 1st speech. The speaker should at least implicitly refer back to the criteria regardless of how the speech is structured, however, if the criteria was elaborate it can be used as points of clash – which team satisfies the criteria better. Thirdly, the speech can focus on consequences. A possible division is having 2 points of clash, one focusing on short term and another on long term consequences. Here the speaker focuses on the practical side, the aftermath of the debate. Another way of structuring the speech is to focus on stakeholders or different levels of analysis. The speech then focuses on how the debate affects all parties involved in the motion, for example the individual and the state. If feeling creative and if appropriate, the speech can be framed into a journey, such as a time travel, a train ride, or painting the picture of what the world according to the motion would look like on both sides. Stops of the journey then serve as clashes, meaning the overall structure is any one of those mentioned above, with the story serving as a framework.
To wrap the speech up, there is a brief conclusion, summing up what has been said. To make the structure seem even clearer and well thought-out, one can go back to the introduction, for example pointing out why the team does a better job at changing the status quo, or how the story changes under the proposed model. Throughout planning and making the speech, it should be kept in mind that the purpose is to show the team has fulfilled its burden and pull the debate to one side, making it clear for the judge what and who matters.