Advanced Summary SPEECHES Olivia Sundberg Berlin IV 2016

Structure of a summary speech Your clash points should be your extension points Can have a separate engagement clash Phrase them comparatively Do not allocate time as your extension speaker does it. Note taking Keep track of rebuttal and of the opening case; identify who is winning if possible Keep extension points as headings Communication Preparation time: You need several arguments and a sense of what your fall back will be Have a system. Let them wing it / number arguments in prep time / write or whisper the extension Who will do what rebuttal? Show where they place in the debate. “Bad for people in prisons” vs “Who helps vulnerable people the most” If extension Point 1 is very good – do not repeat what they said, just remind and impact. If Point 2 is very short, either (a) drop it or (b) rebuild it as much as is fair; no middle ground Generally extension deals with OG and possibly OO, summary deals with OO and CO

DECIDE WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT. Make it work to your advantage.

Content of a summary speech Do not add, do not repeat, but move it forward. What is new material? No: New lines of analysis, new harms, new principle, new context, new mechanisms Yes: New examples (though rarely helpful), references to POIs you asked (engagement, not substantive), engagement, deconstruction, clarity and impacting. I will go through those 4 things. Thin path to tread!

1. Engagement Points of information CG vs CO and CO vs CG Be explicit in your rebuttal (what argument does your extension / rebuttal beat) Be thorough in your rebuttal Even If layers of insulation Positive work on your side Rebut where the argument is going, not where it is now Generally integrate Be explicit in what argument your rebuttal or your extension beats (not “it beats OO” but “if OO want this, here is why they do not achieve it”). Often teams throw 8 points of rebuttal rather than identifying the premises. Last chance to set the terms of how you engage And finally…

Don’t spend time on unimportant rebuttal (examples, individual clashes that will never win them the debate). Take the opposition’s biggest points and rebut them thoroughly.

2. Deconstruction Logic, deconstruction, what has happened in the debate, what teams conceded, real world context Do the judging for the judges Examples? OG say this, OO say this – the point is a wash where both might be true sometimes, so it is irrelevant. OG talked about there being a backlash, OO talked about there being public support. Why B is the most important or the biggest change. OG’s argument only applies to this small group of people. Let’s look at the broader group of people. This is all okay to add. In fact you should do the judges’ work for them and this is a very useful tool

It is generally a four leaf clover. Or you can pick it apart, see what they are trying to achieve, and give a more nuanced characterisation. His response is more nuanced too.

3. Clarity and reconstruction Sometimes you need to add or emphasise mechanisms to the argument, and that is fine. You are expected to advance the argument. How? Re-give the argument adding more detailed mechanisms or examples. Emphasise missing links. Direct response to the opposition’s rebuttal “Their response does not work”, “they misunderstand how this argument/the real world operates” Not “what we meant to say”, “our point was not X, our point was that…” e.g. if your partner did not say something, or if it has been attacked But judges may not notice

Judges have bad memory, so you need to remind them of the core links and the core bottom line

4. Impacting Impacts tell the judge why they should care about the argument. You can add new reasons and important rhetoric here. Impacts (in summary especially) need to be comparative. You can compare different stakeholders “OG want to help the rich and we want to help the poor. Here is why the poor are more important and why only we help them.” You can compare different benefits for the same stakeholders “We agree with OG that the most important thing in this debate is stopping crime / helping minorities. Here is why their benefits are minimal and our benefits are huge in terms of stopping crime.” Most important: Have a framework. Justify what metric you are comparing things by! Something that people miss all the time. Impacts are not the same thing as an outcome. Explaining WHY the argument you just proved to perfection is important enough for you to win the debate. It took me until half-way through my debating career to understand that I had to do this. Don’t just win the argument, but show why that wins the debate. There is this myth of a silver bullet in debating, an argument that is inherently a winning argument. Sometimes top notch speakers give an argument so well that it seems they hit gold. There is no such thing, it is all about how well or how poorly you give it and how much you make it matter.

This will not always work for everyone but it is a good place to start

Questions?