Structuring your Speech

Ideally you should try to have a structure to your speech. If you do then it is more likely to be a good speech. If you don't have some form of structure you may be penalised by adjudicators and you may ramble. You don't have to use a strict structure just have a mental layout of what you want to say and when. In fact if you have too rigid a structure then you will find it impossible to stick to it, when you have to rebutt and deal with points of information. The following is a rough outline of how to structure your speech. In general just use these as guidelines and, ideally, develop a style and structure which you are comfortable with. 1st Minute (0:00-1:00): (Can't be given a point of information).Win the audience, perhaps with a joke.Don't rebutt another speakers speech.Define your speech, i.e. say what you will address and how. Ideally be able to state your argument in a single, short sentence.Define your team approach i.e. say, roughly, what your partner will say (or has said). 2nd Minute (1:00-2:00): Don't take any Points of information until foundation has been laid i.e. until you have developed your speech a bit. Layout your argument. Usually best to propose/oppose on 3 points. (e.g. Political, Economic, Social).Begin your first point. 3rd-6th Minute (2:00-6:00): Accept 2 to 3 points of information. Say outline political aspects and deal with them. Then take a P.O.I. on that. Do the same for the other aspects (i.e. Economics & Social).Use these four minutes to make all your points. Effectively this is your speech.Refer back to the single, short, core sentence one or two times. 7th Minute (6:00-7:00): Once the sixth minute bell has gone you can't be offered any points of information. Finish the point you were on as quickly as possible. Don't introduce any new points or arguments. Sum up. Reiterate your main points and arguments (and those of your partner if you are the second team speaker.).Ideally, if possible, restate the single, core sentence as the last thing you say. 7:00 min:

Stay on your feet until you hear the bell. Finish, immediately if possible, "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to ...............".Be back in your seat by 7:15, if possible, and no later than 7:30.

Adjudication
Points of Information What part do POIs play in a debate? To give and take Points of Information is the role of every speaker. Not doing either is failing to fulfill your role. POIs contribute matter to the debate, and the way in which they are given or taken is a reflection of manner. Thus not taking any POIs means a failure to fulfill your role and potentially lower contribution in matter (however that does not mean an automatic last place). How long should POIs be? POIs are not a place to make an argument, just a point, an example, an accusation or to ask a question. Typically Points Of Information are about 2 sentences long or 15 seconds in length. If a POI is too long, it eats into the time allocated for the speaker and the adjudicator may call order and request the person asking the POI to quit. How many must I take? It is recommended that each speaker takes 2 points of information, 1 from the opening team and another from the closing team. This is fairest and most optimum for interactivity in the debate. Are speakers who do not take 2 points of information automatically punished? No. However it is a consideration when discussing if teams have fulfilled their roles in the debate. Also speakers who take effort to engage with other speakers and encourage interactivity should be rewarded. While this will not guarantee win/loss, it might make a difference in close debates. The context of the debate should also be taken into account. It is understandable to not take a POI if no POIs are offered, or if the speaker is fulfilling his/her role in some other aspect. Can I take more than 2 points of information?

Yes, there is no limit to the number of POIs one can take, but while POIs are an important part of a speech and should become the speech itself. Can I interject into someone elses speech or offer my point of information by saying something colorful (verbalizing), instead of just on that point? Interjections, heckles, comments whether in the process of giving POI or otherwise, are not automatically punished unless they interrupt the speech of the speaker on the floor. Then the debater is exhibiting bad manner and the chair can instruct him/her to maintain order. While contributing to the dynamism and interactivity of the debate, interjections etc do not count as matter points. Are adjudicators then supposed to explicitly ignore everything that is offered through interjection or heckles? If someone says what you were thinking in your head, that does not subjugate your intelligence and your ideas remain valid. It is important however to protect the integrity of the speech of the speaker on the floor. The debate format has to be maintained and if interjections were treated as valid points, no one would bother with making speeches. Nevertheless there are situations where the context of the debate may deem the interjection legitimate. For example, if the speaker is not taking any points of information or trying to shut out one of the teams. In those situations, the person offering the interjection is not trying to interrupt the speech before him but bring attention to the fact that the speaker is not being dynamic and engaging his ideas. The adjudicator then assesses if this is true, decides if action is necessary and acts accordingly. Extensions What is an extension? An extension is matter contribution from the closing team, other than rebuttals. It is an extension of the position of the opening team, and thus should be consistent with them. An extension can be new arguments to support the case, further developments of previous arguments, analysis of previous arguments in a wholly different yet still relevant context or specific case studies that further argue the case of the opening team. However it has to be significantly different from the arguments run by the opening team, enough to distinct the case of the closing and opening. Is it absolutely necessary for closing teams to have an extension? It is the role of every team to further their case in the debate, and extensions are part of that role. Not extending the case is to not fully fulfill your role. Therefore while not having an extension doesnt mean an automatic last, it means a difficult first. In a negative case, do you still need an extension? It becomes more difficult to because there isnt a positive direction that can be extended, but closing teams are still expected to distinct themselves from their opening and offer a unique contribution to the debate.

What if the extension contradicts the position of their opening team? The closing team can choose to ditch their opening team (to shaft them so to speak) if they feel their approach to the debate is not acceptable. They risk being cut out of the debate, if no one else engages their approach, but it is a tactical call and is not an automatic loss. However if the closing team unwittingly contradicts the opening team, then their matter is not consistent and becomes less relevant. Definitions What is a good definition? A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of the debate. Definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate occurs. How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion? A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators should evaluate the effect of the definition. If Govt defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove their self-proving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If Govt defines poorly and creates too many holes, then defending their case will be difficult. Can team parameterize definitions? Yes. Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labour, restricting it to legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and leads to a good debate happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded. However these are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of debate. Thus Govt cannot limit a child labour debate to discussing the right to earn allowance by shovelling snow if the Opp argues that is unfair and expands it. On the other hand if the Opp likes to discuss snow shovelling, that is also their right and they should not be punished for not expanding the parameters. Do you have to include every word in the motion during the definition? You do not have to define every word, but the words in the motion define the potential scope of the debate and the onus of the teams. If the motion reads this house will condemn people who encourage suicide, the focus of the debate is on people who encourage, not commit suicide and not taking that into account could seriously affect the direction of the debate. However you do not have to define people and perhaps can even assume what suicide means. On what basis can you challenge a definition? A definition can be challenged on the basis that a definition is: (take definitions from rules) a) time set/place set

b) truistic/tautological c) wholly unreasonable/squirrel Who can challenge and who cant? Any team in the debate can challenge the definition, because each team is a unique entity. Thus, a debate could have 4 definitions. What happens during a definition debate? To challenge the definition, one has to a) explicitly state that you are challenging the definition b) state why (time or place set, truistic, unreasonable) and explain c) provide a new definition You still maintain your positions in the debate and have to argue appropriately. Thus the Opening Opposition, after challenging the definition and providing a new one would then proceed to oppose the motion, not support it. Once you challenge a definition, other than to show why the previous definition is inaccurate, you do not have to address the issues/arguments that fall under it. One basically ignores that definition. Matter & Manner What is good matter? Good matter is matter that is logically developed, relevant to the case at hand and substantiated. What is good manner? Good manner is manner that is effective in strengthening the argument/case, is entertaining. Which is more important? They are both equally important (check section on scoring). Thus a team could win on manner just as easily as a team could win on matter. Scoring Matter 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 Manner 25-30 30-35 35-40 40-45 Total 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 Range poor below average average break worthy

45-50

45-50

90-100

good (semi-finals level)

Miscellaneous Is there such a thing as an automatic last in a debate? What most horrible sin must a team commit to immediately earn a last position? No. There is nothing in a debate that you can do to get an automatic last short of not showing up. If a first prop team squirrels the motion into a tautology and then the second speaker knifes the first, they probably wont win the round but should not receive an automatic last, they just set a very high threshold for what some other team in the round would have to do in order to take last place away from them (perhaps wetting themselves during their speech or something). Points of Information are a vital part of any debate and should not be underestimated. Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and enjoy the other speeches. You must keep the adjudicators aware of your presence, ideas and argument. Also P.O.I. can be used as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, an opponents speech. Also Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege which are used in some debating formats are not permitted at Worlds/BP P.O.I. (Point of Information) Presentation: When giving a point of information you are expected to stand up, hold your left hand out (place your right hand on your head, honestly!) and say "On a point of information sir". Different people use slight variations on this but this is the basic one. Often speed is important to get in first, but that is no guarantee that you will be accepted. So you should make sure that you have enough space to stand up quickly and at a split second's notice (without sending your notes flying towards the podium). If you can do without a bench for writing, then a front row seat is ideal. If however you can't then use a seat at the end of a row so that you need only stand out to the side. Once you have been accepted stand facing the speaker at the podium but also try to half face the chair and audience, if possible. Keep your P.O.I. short and to the point. The max. time allowed is 15sec but you should try for between 5 and 10 sec. Remember that many speakers like to take a P.O.I. and then use the time to check what they will say next while half listening to the person offering the point. Once they know what the next part of their speech is they work out an answer to your point. If your point is only about 5 sec. in duration it doesn't give them enough time and is more likely to catch them (especially if the point is weak and wouldn't work well if they had time to think about it). It looks bad if they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they have to ask you to repeat it. Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a pause, for breath etc. by the speaker and then offer the point. Obviously you have to be quick and good reflexes are needed to be on your feet literally within a split second. I've found that a point is more likely to be accepted in this type of case but you can't wait for too long as the point could then be out of place.

Styles: Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified. Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers disqualified. Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech develops. This involves leaving weak points go and use just one or two attacking the central core of the speech once it has developed a bit. Accepting: When you are speaking you should accept 2-3 points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and don't assume that you can handle them. Points should not be longer than 15 sec. but you can cut that person off before this if they are making a very poor point and particularly if you have a good put-down to use on them. Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication. The Most common mistake I see as a judge is people accepting the first POI they are offered right on one minute. You haven't said anything yet. Don't take a point unless you have developed a point first. The second most common mistake is taking two points back to back. This is like having a conversation and destroys your ability to properly develop your argument. Just because someone offers you a point you DON'T have to take it if you don't want to.