1. Advanced Summary SPEECHES
Olivia Sundberg
Berlin IV 2016

3. 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

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

5. 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!

6. 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…

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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

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

12. 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.

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

14. Questions?