I have discussed motion analysis, deconstruction, and some characteristics of collegiate debate. These are all only the first step to crafting a speech. Before I delve into anticipation of opposition arguments, which is another crucial part of that first step, I want to get started on structure, the next step. Cos you can't expect your opps to engage you well without knowing how to make 100% sure that they first grasp the sentient points in your case.
Most debaters go for the default speech, which is: 1. rebuttals+witty jabs at the opp 2. substantives 3. summary. If you stick to this, no matter how convincing your arguments are, unless you are on chummy terms with the adjes they aren't likely to pay close attention to your speech, easily glossing over the subtler shifts and nuances that you thought were most critical to your stance. Life's like that. Thankfully, with a little coffee table book help, it can be MUCH more interesting than that.
Here I borrow the four(arguably three) presentation styles from Dan Roam's book "Show and Tell: How Everybody Can Make Extraordinary Presentations". Taken on their own, Dan Roam's tips aren't much help, realistically speaking. But I will try to enliven his points using a motion, and hopefully show that greater clarity and purpose is possible over and beyond simply "knowing more facts than the other team".
Motion: THB the state should not fund any work of art or performance that the average citizen would not recognise as having artistic merit
1. The Report (Who, What, Why, When, How, How Much - In any order, then loop back to first)
Opening cases
Address the "Who, What, Why". Doesnt matter if you are PM or OL, adjes always want to hear what makes this motion matter.
PM - The average citizen pays taxes. These taxes should be invested in positive returns. Ensuring positive returns for the tax-paying public is important for governments who want citizens to continue their support for their other policies.
OL - The average citizen also gets a positive return from a more varied and diverse artistic community. Even if certain art works are not popular, they still yield positive returns by contributing to this diversity. A varied and diverse artistic culture requires government support.
- Notice that the OL's case contains additional responses to the PM's case (underlined)
Cases that attack fundamental positions of an opponent
"When... their case falls."
Better to show specific examples of when their policy might fail than to try to tear it apart. Many excellent debaters out there have water-tight logic, no use questioning it.
DPM - When a work of art is unpopular because it is obscene or contains outdated themes, it is not beneficial, and hence cannot be said to contribute to said diversity.
OM - When a work of art is not popular, it is because it contains some hard truths about a changing society that people are not yet willing to accept, such as homosexuality and feminism. Compared to other countries, such art should exist to remind people of the limitations of their own cultural and societal stereotypes.
Cases that are defensive
"How much... is their purported attack insubstantial/irrelevant."
"How... is their analysis of our points limited."
Again, you shouldn't try to tear down their logic by arguing that they had a flawed analysis, this wastes too much time and is likely inconsequential.
DPM - Truly educational art is rare. Even if it were truly educational, it does not count as a positive return because no one is likely to derive pleasure from being told that they are narrow-minded.
OM - Artistic merit is subjective. Some may think that an artwork is obscene simply because it contains nudity, while others see it as a beautiful form of art. So who is the state to say what should contribute to diversity and what should not?
- Notice that in both cases we see a form of limitation by exclusion: arguing that the opp's attack does not fall within certain categories necessary to topple the original case. This is, imo, the easiest rebuttal form out there.
Cases that are wrapping up an entire debate - whip
"How... our case addresses the motion better -> Who, What"
How we benefit more people (who are they)
How we created more opportunities and benefits (what are these)
GW - More tax payers will support the government if they know that their money is being invested selectively in the artistic community because this ensures the highest return on their money.
OW - More tax payers will gain if the government invests in a diverse community of art because it encourages a more forward-looking community with diversity of opinion.
2. The Explanation (building up steps to a final conclusion)
Present the case in small steps, with each step linking directly to the next. Provide a signpost for each step and signal the start and end. Good for opening and whip cases.
3. The Pitch (like hurling a ball over a hurdle)
Present a problem, your case as a significant solution to the problem, and why it is the only solution
- This is actually the ideal structure for a specific substantive, not for an entire speech.
The
4. The Great Drama (light at the end of the rainbow)
Present your points as a start of some kind of ideal, fairy tale scenario, then present opponents' points as posing great problems to the status quo all round, how the opponents are basically messing up the policy, and how your refined substantives later step in to "save the day"
