| Navigation Bar Placeholder |
individual speech, of the team case as a whole and the extent to which the team
reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate. Each of these three
elements will be further elaborated in the following paragraphs.
METHOD OF AN INDIVIDUAL SPEECH
An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither
compulsory nor exhaustive):
- an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or
helps it to warm to the speaker
- a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the
speech
- a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the
speaker’s argument
- a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each
major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be accomplished
- a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech
OVER-TIME AND UNDER-TIME SPEECHES
Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time-limit and
conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed. Matter
delivered after the time-limit does not attract matter marks. The speech will incur
severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time-limit.
There usually is no penalty for finishing after the first bell but before the time-
limit (unless the speaker was clearly 'padding' the speech in an attempt to make
time, without adding anything to the content of the speech). Finishing before the
first bell indicates poor organisation and usually attracts a method penalty. But
this should be assessed with regard to the completeness or paucity of the
argument and other aspects of the debate such as whether the opposing team
ran a truism and prevented rebuttal.
METHOD OF THE TEAM
In considering team method, you are assessing whether the team structured its
overall approach to maximise its effectiveness and whether the individual
speakers adequately fulfilled their part in the team presentation. In general, a
'thematic' team structure will be more effective than a structure consisting of a
series of independent arguments. The former approach gives the appearance
of being a total body of argument while the latter approach represents a series
of isolated points without any link or consistent foundation.
The roles played by each speaker in a team presentation can be summarised
as follows:
1. First affirmative speaker
- define the affirmative's interpretation of the topic and specify the essential
issues in contention - give an outline of the team structure, indicating the basic theme of the
team's case and the aspects to be dealt with by each speaker - deal with those elements of the case allocated to him or her
2. First negative speaker
- identify the major areas of initial disagreement (including definitional
issues if appropriate) with the affirmative case up to that time and engage
in rebuttal - a give a clear outline of the negative's team structure
- a deal with those elements allocated to the first speaker
3. Second affirmative and negative speakers
- rebut opponents' case and arguments
- argue in defence of one's own case against rebuttal by previous speaker
- deal with those elements of the substantial case allocated to him or her
4. Third speakers on both sides
- present an overview of the debate, rebutting the important aspects of the
opposing team's case and defending one's own team's case - summarise his or her arguments
5. Reply speeches
- provide an overview that compares and contrasts each team's views of
the central issues of contention in the debate
RESPONSE TO THE DYNAMICS OF THE DEBATE
This element of method requires you to assess whether a speaker has reacted
appropriately to the strategic requirements of the debate as they emerged. The
following are examples of such dynamics:
- When a negative team has a problem with the affirmative definition, it is
important strategically to deal with this at the first negative speech (as well
as the second and third) so that the definition does not proceed without
dispute until much later. - A method failure results when a speaker argues a point that has already
been conceded (thus failing to acknowledge the concession) or a point
that is not being contested or relevant to the debate.
In administering a method penalty, you should be careful to note the distinction
between matter and method. A speaker who commits a strategic error may be
given full credit for the quality of the argument in matter, but a penalty will be
imposed in method. On the other hand, if a speaker reacts appropriately to the
dynamics of the debate, he or she may be rewarded in both method (for
identifying the issue) and matter (for convincingly tackling it).
2. Assessing
Matter
3. Assessing
Method
4. Assessing
Manner
5. Other Issues
6. Marking Scale
7. Conclusion
