how to write a first affirmative debate speech

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Communication Skills
• Public Speaking

How to Write a Debate Speech

Last Updated: April 12, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Patrick Muñoz . Patrick is an internationally recognized Voice & Speech Coach, focusing on public speaking, vocal power, accent and dialects, accent reduction, voiceover, acting and speech therapy. He has worked with clients such as Penelope Cruz, Eva Longoria, and Roselyn Sanchez. He was voted LA's Favorite Voice and Dialect Coach by BACKSTAGE, is the voice and speech coach for Disney and Turner Classic Movies, and is a member of Voice and Speech Trainers Association. There are 9 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 1,496,466 times.

So, you've joined debate, and it's time to write a debate speech. There are some tried and true methods to writing an effective debate speech. If you understand them, and the components that make up a standard debate speech, you will increase your chances of success.

Sample Speeches

Preparing for the Debate Speech

• You may be asked to stand affirmative or negative. In LD (Lincoln-Douglas debate), the first affirmative speech will be at most 7 minutes long, and the first negative speech will be at most 6 minutes. [1] X Research source
• The speakers then present arguments against the earlier affirmative or negative speech that was just read. Speakers must listen carefully and be able to counter arguments. There are two segments involving cross-examination (CX), in which the debaters are allowed to ask questions and openly debate the topic. This is most often called cross-examination, or cx for short, and occurs after the first affirmative speech, and the first negative speech.
• The best thing you can do to better understand LD/PF/Policy debate is practice and research.

• Brainstorm the topic, and research it before you sit down to write. Write out a list of key components for both sides of the issue. If you are on a debate team, do this together. Each member could discuss the key component list, in order to figure out which issues you want to cover in each speech.
• Spend some time at the library or on the Internet using credible sources to research the key reasons that seem strongest. Use books, scholarly journals, credible newspapers, and the like. Be very cautious about unverified information bandied about on the Internet.
• You will also want prepare to deal with the strongest arguments your opponent(s) might make. Ignoring the other side’s best arguments can weaken your rhetorical appeal.

• A basic debate outline should contain six parts: An attention-getter, your stated stance (aff or neg)/ restatement of the resolution, your definitions, your value, criterion, and contentions.
• You can break each of those six parts into subcategories. It’s often a good idea to write the contentions last, focusing on the value and criterion to hold it up first.

Writing the Debate Speech

• You should address the jury or audience with formal salutations. For example, you could say something like, “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.” Debates are very formal in tone.
• Making a good first impression with the judges is very important. This leads judges to assume the debater is persuasive. One technique to write a strong introduction is to contextualize the topic, especially in relation to real world events. [6] X Trustworthy Source American Bar Association Leading professional organization of lawyers and law students Go to source
• Introductions can also focus on prominent examples, quotations, or on a personal anecdote that can help establish a rapport with the audience and judges. Be careful using humor; it involves risks and can lead to awkward silences if not done right. Find a relevant specific that illustrates the underlying point.

• Don’t muddle your position. It needs to be extremely clear whether you affirm or negate the resolution, so don’t hem and haw and contradict yourself. The audience also should not have to wait until the end to find out. Make your stance very clear, and do it early on
• For example, you could say, “my partner and I firmly negate (or affirm) the resolution which states that unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.” [7] X Research source

• A good rule of thumb is to back up your position with 3-4 strong points of supporting argumentation. You definitely need to have more than 1 or 2 key points to back up the stance you have taken.
• The body of the speech – the key points and their development – should be, by far, the longest part of the debate speech (perhaps 3 ½ minutes to 30 seconds for an opening and for a conclusion, depending on the rules of the debate you are doing).

• Focus on the causes of the problem, the effects of the problem, expert opinion, examples, statistics, and present a solution. Try to use visual images, not just generic terms – show don’t tell, and illustrate a point with details.
• Appeal to the motives and emotions of the listener with a light touch. Appeal to their sense of fair play, desire to save, to be helpful, to care about community, etc. Ground examples in how people are affected.
• Try using rhetorical questions, which make your opponents consider the validity of their point; irony, which undermines their point and makes you seem more mature and intelligent; simile, which gives them something to relate to; humor, which gets the audience on your side when done well; and repetition, which reinforces your point.

• Aristotle believed that speakers were more persuasive if they combined elements of logos (persuasion by reasoning) with pathos (having an element of emotional appeal) and ethos (an appeal based on the character of the speaker) - for example, that they seem intelligent or of good will.
• There are two ways to use logic – inductive (which makes the case with measurable evidence like statistics or a specific anecdote or example) and deductive (which makes the case by outlining a general principle that is related to the specific topic to infer a conclusion from it - as in, I oppose all wars except those involving imminent self defense; thus, I must oppose this one because it's a war that was not in imminent self defense, and here's why). Or the reverse.
• You should use pathos sparingly. Emotional appeal on its own can be dangerous. Logos - the appeal to reason - should be at the core. However, logical appeal without any pathos at all can render a speech dry and dull. Consider what you are trying to make your audience feel. Explaining how a topic affects real people is one way to use pathos well.

Concluding the Debate Speech

• One strong way to conclude a debate speech is to bookend the conclusion with the opening, by referring back to the introduction and tying the conclusion into the same theme.
• Quotations can be a good way to end a speech. You can also end with a brief summation of the key arguments of the speech to ensure they remain fresh in judges’ minds.

• Use a clear, loud voice, and be careful to watch pacing. You don’t want to speak too loud or too slowly. Remember that confidence goes a long way toward persuasion.

Expert Q&A

Reader Videos

• Never add new points in your speech because you still have time, as you might not present it in the best way. When you are nervous, you might even say an argument in favor of the other side and you don't want that. Thanks Helpful 31 Not Helpful 2
• Never degrade your topic. Thanks Helpful 32 Not Helpful 3
• Don't use all your points in your debate- in an actual debate, it is sometimes useful to have other information to cite if the argument starts going their way Thanks Helpful 29 Not Helpful 3

Tips from our Readers

• You can make a sample opening and closing speech beforehand so you can focus more time on developing your arguments during the actual debate.
• Make sure to include rebuttals in your speech, as they are just as important as your main arguments.
• Practice as much as possible — it will make you more confident and help you maintain eye contact.
• Imagine you're just practicing with a friend rather than performing in front of an audience.
• Take deep breaths before starting to ease nerves.

• Remember, just because you can write a debate speech, it doesn't mean you can say a debate speech effectively. Practice! Thanks Helpful 22 Not Helpful 5

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://www.learndebating.com/english/DEBATING.pdf
• ↑ https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/faq/reliable
• ↑ Patrick Muñoz. Voice & Speech Coach. Expert Interview. 12 November 2019.
• ↑ https://www.hamilton.edu/academics/centers/oralcommunication/guides/how-to-outline-a-speech
• ↑ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/trial-evidence/five-tips-engaging-opening-statements/
• ↑ http://www.oxfordsd.org/Page/5582
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/argument/
• ↑ https://www.comm.pitt.edu/persuasive-speaking
• ↑ https://www.comm.pitt.edu/speech-anxiety

About This Article

To write a debate speech, start by researching the topic thoroughly with credible and scholarly sources, and make an outline of your argument including an introduction, thesis argument, key points, and conclusion. Write the thesis argument and develop 3-4 strong points of argumentation. Be sure to clearly state your stance, and utilize expert opinions, statistics, and examples to support your opinion. To finish the speech, write an interesting introduction that incorporates your thesis and a brief conclusion that summarizes your main points. If you want to learn more, such as how to make your debate speech persuasive, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Kaveesha Pathiranahewa

Dec 1, 2021

Payton Ayoardi

Jul 25, 2021

David Williams

Nov 21, 2017

Luyanda Nondalo

Feb 6, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

How to Write a Winning Debate Speech

What is a Debate?

A classroom debate involves students delivering persuasive speeches to present and support their opinions on a given subject. This activity helps develop critical thinking and communication skills, enabling students to gain a more comprehensive grasp of various topics.

Debate speeches are written according to a set of rules so a moderator can assess their effectiveness and allow others to question or challenge their statements within a formal debate.

A classroom debate is not an unruly fight or pointless argument but a structured formal conversation on a chosen topic in which two teams argue for or against it to convince the neutral moderator that they hold the stronger position.

Debating is a form of persuasive communication, and while we will be sticking to the fundamentals of how to write a debating speech, we also have a great guide to persuasive essay writing that elaborates on specific persuasive techniques.

Complete Teaching Unit on Class Debating

This unit will guide your students to write excellent DEBATE SPEECHES and craft well-researched, constructed ARGU MENTS ready for critique from their classmates.

Furthermore, this EDITABLE UNIT will provide the TOOLS and STRATEGIES for running highly engaging CLASSROOM DEBATES.

How To Run A Classroom Debate

Before jumping in headfirst to write your debating speech, ensure you understand how a debate is run to maximise your strategy and impact when it counts.

Debates occur in many different contexts, such as public meetings, election campaigns, legislative assemblies, and as entertainment on television shows. These contexts determine the specific structure the debate will follow.

This guide provides a basic step-by-step debate structure we can comfortably run with students in a classroom. By familiarizing students with this structure, they will effortlessly transition to other debate frameworks.

Running a classroom debate can be an engaging and educational activity that helps students develop critical thinking, communication, and research skills. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to organize and facilitate a successful classroom debate:

1. Choose a Topic For Your Debate.

Also called a resolution or a motion , the topic is sometimes chosen to debate. This is usually the case in a school activity to practice debating skills. 

The resolution or motion is usually centered around a true or false statement or a proposal to change the current situation. Often, the motion starts, ”This House believes that….”

Select a topic relevant to your curriculum and the students’ interests. Ensure that it is debatable and has multiple perspectives. Further down this article, you can find a list of popular classroom debating topics.

2. Form Two Debating Teams

Two teams of three speakers each are formed. These are referred to as ‘ The House for the Motion ’ or the ‘ Affirmative ’ team and ‘The House Against the Motion ’ or the ‘ Negative ’ team.

Preparation is an essential aspect of debating. The speech and debate team members will need time to research their arguments, collaborate, and organize themselves and their respective roles in the upcoming debate.

They’ll also need time to write and rehearse their speeches. The better prepared and coordinated they are as a team, the greater their chances of success in the debate.

3. Assign Roles to Students.

Each team member should have a specific role, such as speaker, researcher , or rebuttal specialist . This encourages teamwork and ensures that each student is actively involved.

4. Research and Preparation:

• Allocate time for teams to research and prepare their arguments. Encourage students to use multiple sources, including books, articles, and reputable websites. Make sure you read our complete guide to powerful student research strategies.

5. Set Debate Format:

• Define the debate format, including the structure of each round. Common formats include opening statements, cross-examination, rebuttals, and closing statements.

6. Establish Rules:

• Set ground rules for the debate, such as time limits for each speaker, etiquette, guidelines for respectful communication, and consequences for rule violations.

7. Conduct a Practice Debate:

• Before the actual debate, conduct a practice round. This helps students become familiar with the format and allows you to provide feedback on their arguments and presentation skills.
• On the day of the debate, set up the classroom to accommodate the format. Ensure that each round has a clear structure, and designate a timekeeper to keep the debate on schedule.

9. Facilitate Q&A Sessions:

• After each team presents their arguments, allow time for questions and cross-examination. This encourages critical thinking and engagement among the students.

10. Evaluate and Debrief:

• After the debate, provide constructive feedback to each team. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, presentation skills, and teamwork. Also, please encourage students to reflect on what they learned from the experience.
• Have a class discussion about the debate, exploring different perspectives and opinions. This can deepen students’ understanding of the topic and enhance their critical thinking skills.

Consider integrating the debate topic into future lessons or assignments. This reinforces the learning experience and allows students to delve deeper into the subject matter.

Remember to create a supportive and respectful environment throughout the debate, emphasizing the importance of listening to opposing views and engaging in constructive dialogue.

Each speaker takes a turn making their speech, alternating between the House for the Motion, who goes first, and the House Against the Motion. Each speaker speaks for a pre-agreed amount of time.

Ensure your debate is held in front of an audience (in this case, the class), and occasionally, the audience is given time to ask questions after all the speeches have been made.

Finally, the debate is judged either by moderators or by an audience vote. 

Download our Debate Organizer

Stay fousssed with this handy template to keep all your ideas organized.

How To Write A Debate

How to start a debate speech.

In highly competitive speech and debate tournaments, students are only provided the topic on the day, and limited time is allowed for preparation, but this is not recommended for beginners.

Regardless of the stakes of your classroom debate, the speechwriting process always begins with research. Thorough research will provide students with both the arguments and the supporting evidence for their position on a topic and generate forward-thinking about what their opponents might use against them.

Writing Your Introduction

The purpose of the introduction in a debate speech is to achieve several things:

• Grab the attention of the audience,
• Introduce the topic
• Provide a thesis statement
• Preview some of the main arguments.

Grab The Attention Of Your Audience With Strong Hooks

Securing the audience’s attention is crucial, and failure to do this will have a strong, negative impact on how the team’s efforts will be scored as a whole. Let’s explore three proven strategies to hook your audience and align their thinking to yours.

Introduce Your Topic With Efficiency and Effectiveness

Once the audience’s attention has been firmly grasped, it’s time to introduce the topic or the motion. This should be done straightforwardly and transparently to ensure the audience understands the topic of the debate and the position you are approaching it from.

For example, if the topic of the debate was school uniforms, the topic may be introduced with:

Provide Your Thesis Statement

A thesis statement is a concise declaration summarizing the points and arguments of your debating speech.

• It presents a clear stance on a topic and guides the reader on what to expect in the content.
• A good thesis statement is debatable and allows for opposing viewpoints and discussion.
• It serves as a roadmap for the writer, ensuring coherence and focus in the piece.
• It helps the audience understand the purpose and direction of the work from the beginning.

The thesis statement should express the student’s or the team’s position on the motion. Clearly explaining the speaker’s side of the debate. An example can be seen here.

Provide A Preview Of Your Arguments

The final part of the introduction section of a debate speech involves previewing the main points of the speech for the audience.

There is no need to go into detail with each argument here; that’s what the body of the speech is for. It is enough to provide a general thesis statement for each argument or ‘claims’ – (more on this to follow).

Previewing the arguments in a speech is especially important as the audience and judges only get one listen to a speech – unlike a text, which can be reread as frequently as the reader likes.

debate introduction examples for students

Attention grabbers task.

After explaining the different types of attention grabbers and the format for the rest of the introduction to your students, challenge them to write an example of each type of opening for a specific debate topic. 

When they’ve finished writing these speech openings, discuss with the students which one best fits their chosen topic. Then, they can continue by completing the rest of the introduction for their speech using the format described above.

You might like to try a simple topic like “Homework should be banned.” you can choose from our collection further in this article.

Writing T he Body of the Speech

The body paragraphs are the real meat of the speech. They contain the in-depth arguments that make up the substance of the debate, and How well these arguments are made will determine how the judges will assess each speaker’s performance, so it’s essential to get the structure of these arguments just right.

Let’s take a look at how to do that.

How to structure an Argument

With the introduction out of the way, it’s time for the student to get down to the nitty-gritty of the debate – that is, making compelling arguments to support their case.

There are three main aspects to an argument in a debate speech. They are:

• The Warrant

Following this structure carefully enables our students to build coherent and robust arguments. Ttake a look at these elements in action in the example below.

Brainstorming Arguments

Present your students with a topic and, as a class, brainstorm some arguments for and against the motion.

Then, ask students to choose one argument and, using the Claim-Warrant-Impact format, take a few moments to write down a well-structured argument that’s up to debate standard.

Students can then present their arguments to the class. 

Or, you could also divide the class along pro/con lines and host a mini-debate!

Concluding a Debate Speech

The conclusion of a speech or a debate is the final chance for the speaker to convey their message to the audience. In a formal debate that has a set time limit, the conclusion is crucial as it demonstrates the speaker’s ability to cover all their material within the given time frame.

Avoid introducing new information and focus on reinforcing the strength of your position for a compelling and memorable conclusion.

A good conclusion should refer back to the introduction and restate the main position of the speaker, followed by a summary of the key arguments presented. Finally, the speaker should end the speech with a powerful image that will leave a lasting impression on the audience and judges.

Examples of strong debate Conclusions

The Burden of the Rejoinder

In formal debates, the burden of the rejoinder means that any time an opponent makes a point for their side, it’s incumbent upon the student/team to address that point directly.

Failing to do so will automatically be seen as accepting the truth of the point made by the opponent.

For example, if the opposing side argues that all grass is pink, despite how ridiculous that statement is, failing to refute that point directly means that, for the debate, all grass is pink.

Our students must understand the burden of the rejoinder and ensure that any points the opposing team makes are fully addressed during the debate.

The Devils Advocate

When preparing to write their speech, students should spend a significant proportion of their team collaborating as a team. 

One good way to practice the burden of the rejoinder concept is to use the concept of Devil’s Advocate, whereby one team member acts as a member of the opposing team, posing arguments from the other side for the speaker to counter, sharpening up their refutation skills in the process.

20 Great Debating Topics for Students

• Should cell phones be allowed in schools?
• Is climate change primarily caused by human activities?
• Should the voting age be lowered to 16?
• Is social media more harmful than beneficial to society?
• Should genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be embraced or rejected?
• Is the death penalty an effective crime deterrent?
• Should schools implement mandatory drug testing for students?
• Is animal testing necessary for scientific and medical advancements?
• Should school uniforms be mandatory?
• Is censorship justified in certain circumstances?
• Should the use of performance-enhancing drugs be allowed in sports?
• Is homeschooling more beneficial than traditional schooling?
• Should the use of plastic bags be banned?
• Is nuclear energy a viable solution to the world’s energy needs?
• Should the government regulate the fast food industry?
• Is social inequality a result of systemic factors or individual choices?
• Should the consumption of meat be reduced for environmental reasons?
• Is online learning more effective than traditional classroom learning?
• Should the use of drones in warfare be banned?
• Is the legalization of marijuana beneficial for society?

These topics cover a range of subjects and offer students the opportunity to engage in thought-provoking debates on relevant and impactful issues.

OTHER GREAT ARTICLES RELATED TO DEBATING

The Ultimate Guide to Opinion Writing for Students and Teachers

Top 5 Persuasive Writing Techniques for Students

5 Top Persuasive Writing Lesson Plans for Students and Teachers

23 Persuasive writing Topics for High School students

How to Write Perfect Persuasive Essays in 5 Simple Steps

Debating strategies for students.

Research and preparation are essential to ensure good performance in a debate. Students should spend as much time as possible drafting and redrafting their speeches to maximize their chances of winning. However, a debate is a dynamic activity, and victory cannot be assured by pre-writing alone.

Students must understand that the key to securing victory lies in also being able to think, write (often in the form of notes), and respond instantly amid the turmoil of the verbal battle. To do this, students must understand the following keys to victory.

When we think of winning a debate, we often think of blinding the enemy with the brilliance of our verbal eloquence. We think of impressing the audience and the judges alike with our outstanding oratory.

What we don’t often picture when we imagine what a debate winner looks like is a quiet figure sitting and listening intently. But being a good listener is one of our students’ most critical debating skills.

If students don’t listen to the other side, whether by researching opposing arguments or during the thrust of the actual debate, they won’t know the arguments the other side is making. Without this knowledge, they cannot effectively refute the opposition’s claims.

Read the Audience

In terms of the writing that happens before the debate takes place, this means knowing your audience. 

Students should learn that how they present their arguments may change according to the demographics of the audience and/or judges to whom they will be making their speech. 

An audience of retired school teachers and an audience of teen students may have very different responses to the same arguments.

This applies during the actual debate itself too. If the student making their speech reads resistance in the faces of the listeners, they should be prepared to adapt their approach accordingly in mid-speech.

Practice, Practice, Practice

The student must practice their speech before the debate. There’s no need to learn it entirely by heart. There isn’t usually an expectation to memorize a speech entirely, and doing so can lead to the speaker losing some of their spontaneity and power in their delivery. At the same time, students shouldn’t spend the whole speech bent over a sheet of paper reading word by word.

Ideally, students should familiarize themselves with the content and be prepared to deliver their speech using flashcards as prompts when necessary.

Another important element for students to focus on when practising their speech is making their body language, facial expressions, and hand gestures coherent with the verbal content of their speech. One excellent way to achieve this is for the student to practice delivering their speech in a mirror.

And Finally…

Debating is a lot of fun to teach and partake in, but it also offers students a valuable opportunity to pick up some powerful life skills.

It helps students develop a knack for distinguishing fact from opinion and an ability to assess whether a source is credible or not. It also helps to encourage them to think about the other side of the argument. 

Debating helps our students understand others, even when disagreeing with them. An important skill in these challenging times, without a doubt.

Debating Teaching Strategies

Clearly Define Debate Roles and Structure when running speech and debate events: Clearly define the roles of speakers, timekeepers, moderators, and audience members. Establish a structured format with specific time limits for speeches, rebuttals, and audience participation. This ensures a well-organized and engaging debate.

• Provide Topic Selection and Preparation Time: Offer students a range of debate topics, allowing them to select a subject they are passionate about. Allocate ample time for research and preparation, encouraging students to gather evidence, develop strong arguments, and anticipate counterarguments.
• Incorporate Scaffolded Debating Skills Practice: Before the actual debate, engage students in scaffolded activities that build their debating skills. This can include small group discussions, mock debates, or persuasive writing exercises. Provide feedback and guidance to help students refine their arguments and delivery.
• Encourage Active Listening and Note-taking during speech and debate competitions: Emphasize the importance of active listening during the debate. Encourage students to take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and persuasive techniques used by speakers. This cultivates critical thinking skills and prepares them for thoughtful responses during rebuttals.
• Facilitate Post-Debate Reflection and Discussion: After the debate, facilitate a reflection session where students can share their thoughts, lessons learned, and insights gained. Encourage them to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments and engage in constructive dialogue. This promotes metacognitive skills and encourages continuous improvement.

By following these tips, teachers can create a vibrant and educational debate experience for their students. Through structured preparation, active engagement, and reflective discussions, students develop valuable literacy and critical thinking skills that extend beyond the boundaries of the debate itself.

A COMPLETE UNIT FOR TEACHING OPINION WRITING

Teach your students to write EXCELLENT PERSUASIVE ESSAYS and master INFLUENTIAL WRITING SKILLS using PROVEN TEACHING STRATEGIES with this 140-PAGE UNIT.

ALL RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS INCLUDED – NO PREP REQUIRED.

30+ 5-star Ratings ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Improve your practice.

Enhance your soft skills with a range of award-winning courses.

Complete Guide to Debating: How to Improve your Debating Skills

August 1, 2018 - Gini Beqiri

Debating can look intimidating from the sidelines, with speakers appearing confident, passionate and unwavering, but it consists of skills that anybody can learn. Debating may not be something that you encounter in your everyday work but these skills can be incredibly valuable. In this article we provide a guide to the basics of debating.

What is debating?

A debate is a structured contest over an issue or policy. There are two sides – one supporting, one opposing.

Benefits of debating include:

• Allowing you to think about aspects and perspectives you may not have considered.
• Encourages you to speak strategically.
• Improving  public speaking skills .
• Learning how to create a persuasive argument.
• When you have to argue against your personal view you realise that there are two sides to the argument.

Debating examples

The U.K. Prime Minister, Theresa May, answers questions:

This example video shows Theresa May answering questions from MPs in the House of Commons. Notice her strong debating skills and how she answers difficult questions under pressure.

Watch the full video here:  Prime Minister’s Questions: 16 May 2018

Debate structure

There are multiple formats a debate can follow, this is a basic debate structure:

• A topic is chosen for each debate – this is called a resolution or motion. It can be a statement, policy or idea. The motion is usually a policy which changes the current state of affairs or a statement which is either truth or false. The motion typically starts with “This House…”
• The Affirmative team support the statement
• The Negative team oppose the statement
• Sometimes you will be asked to take a position in the debate but in other debates you will be allocated your position.
• Teams are provided with time to prepare – usually one hour
• Each speaker presents for a set amount of time
• Speakers alternate between the teams, usually a speaker in the Affirmative team starts, followed by a Negative speaker, then the second Affirmative speaker presents, followed by the second Negative speaker etc.
• The debate is then judged.
• There may be an audience present but they are not involved in the debate

Once you have learned how to debate in one format you can easily switch to another.

Roles of the speakers

Each speaker must typically do the following:

First Affirmative

• Contextualise the debate – clearly set out your team’s interpretation of the topic and the significant issues they disagree with.
• Provide definitions if necessary.
• Outline the team line and the team split – this is where you outline your team’s case and summarise the way your arguments have been divided between your speakers.
• Provide 2-3 arguments supporting the motion.

First Negative

• Clearly state your definition
• Provide your arguments as to why this is the superior definition
• Rebut the Affirmative’s arguments supporting their definition
• Outline a team line and team split.
• Rebut the arguments made by the First Affirmative.
• Deliver 2-3 arguments against the motion.

Second Affirmative

• If needed, resolve any definitional issues.
• Rebut the First Negative’s arguments.
• Deliver 2-3 arguments supporting the motion.

Second Negative

• Rebut the arguments made by the Affirmative team up to this point, with a focus on the Second Affirmative’s arguments.

Third Affirmative

• Rebut specific issues raised by Second Negative and defend any other important attacks on your team’s case.
• Conclude your speech with a brief summary (1-2 minutes) of your team’s case. You should include the key issues which you and the Negative team disagreed on during this.
• You can introduce new material but this is interpreted as poor team planning.

Third Negative

• This is the same structure as the Third Affirmative.

There are many variations of the three against three debate, a commonly known one is Points of Information. This is used a lot in  university debates . During a speech the opposition is allowed to ask a question or make a point.

They stand up and say “point of information” or “on that point” etc. The speaker can choose to accept or reject the point. If accepted, the point of information can last around 15 seconds and the speaker can ask for it to stop at any time.

Debate definitions

Younger debaters tend to waste time defining terms so you must first decide whether you need to define a term. Ask yourself: will my speech be confusing if I don’t define this term? Could the opposition misinterpret what I mean without a definition? For example, the motion could be “we should ban plastic straws”. It’s clear what “plastic straws” are but what does “ban” mean?

Two factors which determine the definition of the debate:

1. Context  – what is happening in the area that relates to this issue? For example, maybe the government of a country is debating banning smoking in public buildings and you decide to define the term “passive smoking” during the debate. If a significant event related to the topic has occurred then it should be the focus of the debate, for instance, a shocking report may have recently been revealed in the media showing the widespread effects of second-hand smoking.

2. Spirit of the motion  – topics are chosen for a reason so what sort of debate was imagined when the topic was chosen? Looking at the spirit of the motion will ensure that you pick a definition that will produce a well-balanced and important debate.

If the topic is vague then you will have more choice of definitions. You have a duty to pick a clear definition and one that will create a good debate. If not, this may cause a definitional challenge which will ruin the debate and frustrate the judges.

For example, the topic may be “we spend too much money on the stars”. Stars can refer to celebrities or astronomy so you need to choose a definition.

• Look at the context and see if there has been a recent significant event related to either topics – the media is the best place to look.
• Then apply second test – which definition will lead to the best debate, which will be more interesting and debatable?

If one answer passes both tests then that’s your definition. If they tie then either is a good definition.

When providing your definition explain the context used to form the definition. This is important because your understanding of the context may be different from others due to various factors, such as, religion, culture, gender etc.

Learn more about using  AI to practice your debating skills .

Basic argument structure

There are various ways of dividing up cases according to groups of arguments, such as, social/economic/political etc. You could assign each speaker to handle a group.

Place the most important arguments first, for example, “The media has more influence on self-esteem than anybody else. This is true for three reasons. Firstly (most important argument)… Secondly…, Thirdly (least important argument)…”

To structure an argument follow these steps:

• Claim  – present your argument in a clear statement. This claim is one reason why you’re in favour of/against the motion.
• Evidence  – the evidence supporting your claim, such as, statistics, references, quotes, analogies etc.
• Impact  – explain the significance of the evidence – how does this support your claim?

Arguments are weakest at the evidence stage as it’s easy to argue against, for example, the evidence may consist of isolated examples or there may be counter evidence. But it’s not a good technique because the opposition can provide more evidence or rebut your criticisms.

It’s difficult to rebut claims because they are usually reasonable but if you can attack a claim then that speaker’s whole argument falls apart. So if you think a claim is vulnerable then rebut it but you will need a strong explanation to show why it doesn’t matter.

European  human rights debating  for sixth form students from across London.

There are common flaws you can look for to form a rebuttal:

1. False dichotomy  – this is where the speaker is trying to falsely divide the debate into two sides even though there are more alternatives than they state. It’s likely the speaker is doing this on purpose but in some cases they do not understand the debate.

2. Assertion  – this is when a speaker presents a statement which isn’t actually an argument because there is no reason to believe that the statement is valid. It may just be an assumption. You can point out that there has not been enough examination to prove this validity and then give a reason why the assertion is (probably) not valid.

3. Morally flawed  – arguments can be morally flawed, for example, “All criminals given a prison sentence should be given the death penalty instead, this will save the country money and space.” What has been argued is true but it’s clearly morally flawed.

4. Correlation rather than causation  – a speaker may suggest a link between two events and suggest one led to the other. But the speaker may not explain how one caused the other event which can make an argument invalid.

5. Failure to deliver promises  – sometimes a speaker might fail to complete a task they promised to deliver. For instance, they may state that they will provide evidence supporting a certain claim but they may lose track of what they have said and not actually do this.

6. Straw man  – the opposing team introduces an argument and then rebuts it. They may use an extreme example of your proposal or perhaps they were hoping that you would make this argument.

7. Contradiction  – an argument the other team presents may contradict one of their previous arguments. You must point out that the arguments cannot be true simultaneously and then explain how this reduces their case’s credibility.

8. Compare the conclusion to reality  – think “what would happen if what they (the other team) are suggesting is implemented right now?” This usually shows that it’s more complicated than they have suggested and the changes can cause secondary problems.

Judges generally score the speakers looking at this criteria:

• Content / Matter  – What the debaters say, their arguments and evidence, the relevance of their arguments.
• Style / Manner  – How the debaters speak, including the language and tone used.
• Strategy / Method  – The structure of the speech, the clarity and responding to other’s arguments.

Debating event at  the Oxford Union

Important skills for debating

To meet the judges criteria you will have to develop certain skills, consider the following:

• You points must be relevant to the topic.
• Provide evidence whenever you can and not your personal opinion.
• You must put aside your personal views and remain objective when you debate so your argument remains logical. You can be passionate about a topic but interest can turn into aggression and passion can turn into upset.
• Consider the audience’s attention span – make it interesting, for example, don’t just present lots of complicated statistics.
• Ethos – the ethical appeal
• Pathos – the emotional appeal
• Logos – the logical appeal
• Use notes but keep them brief and well organised. Use a different piece of paper for rebuttals.
• Similar to looking at conclusions to create rebuttals, think comparatively by asking yourself “How does my plan compare to what’s happening now/what would happen in the world if the other team won?” You can win the debate if you can make comparative claims about why your arguments matter more than the other team.
• Only tell jokes if you’re naturally good at it otherwise this can backfire.
• Flexibility is important because you might get allocated the side of the argument you don’t agree with. You’ll have to work hard to overcome your views. Also use this insight to think of the potential arguments you might make and then plan for counter arguments.
• Speak clearly and concisely.
• You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood.
• Project your voice to the back of the room.
• Incorporate dramatic pauses.
• Emphasise important words and vary your tone appropriately.
• Have a relaxed pose and posture.
• Avoid filler words.
• Know your material.
• Emphasise using gestures and avoid nervous gestures.
• Maintain eye contact with the audience.
• Keep your language simple to avoid confusion.
• Refer to the opposite side as: “My opponent”.
• When making a rebuttal say: “My opponent said…, however…”
• Don’t exaggerate – avoid the words “never” or “always” etc.
• Avoid saying that a speaker “is wrong”, instead say that “your idea is mistaken”.

What to avoid

• Falsifying, making up or altering evidence.
• Publicly disagreeing with the judges’ decision.
• Attacking a speaker rather than an idea.
• Acting aggressively or offensively towards debaters, judges, audience etc.
• Interrupting other debaters as this can suggest that your argument isn’t very strong.
• Disagreeing with facts or obvious truths.

British Parliamentary debating

British Parliamentary debating  is a popular form of debating so we will briefly explain it: There are four teams made up of two speakers each. Two teams are on the government’s side and the other two teams are the opposition but all the teams are trying to win rather than one side. The motion is given 15 minutes before the debate begins and teams are assigned to positions randomly. They alternate their speeches, with the government’s side starting. Speeches are usually 5-7 minutes.

The first two speakers on the government side are called the “opening government” and the first two speakers on the opposition’s side are called the “opening opposition”. The last two speakers on the government’s and opposition’s side are called the “closing government” and “closing opposition” correspondingly.

The speakers’ roles in the opening half of the debate are similar to the roles of the first and second speakers in the three against three debate described previously. The only difference is that the second opening government and second opening opposition speakers include summaries at the end of their speeches – this is because they will also be competing with the teams in the closing half of the debate.

The closing government and closing opposition aim to move the debate on but not contradict their side’s opening team. As well as rebuttal, the majority of the third speaker’s time consists of presenting either: new material, new arguments, a new analysis from a different perspective or extending previously presented arguments. This is called an “extension” which must be something that sets their team apart and makes them unique.

The last two speeches of the closing teams are summary speeches – they summarise the debate and disagreements between the team. Their most important goal is to explain why their side has won the debate. They are not allowed to present new arguments but they can present new evidence and rebuttal.

During the speeches points of information are offered regularly. Speakers should only accept a maximum of two points of information. The first and last minute is protected time where points of information cannot be offered.

Rather than a side trying to win, all the teams are trying to win – this allows different perspectives to be explored. The teams are then ranked 1st to 4th in the debate.

Debate topics

Almost anything can be debated, here are some popular topics – these have been written as questions but they can be easily adapted into statements:

• Is animal experimentation justified?
• Should we legalise the possession of cannabis for medicinal use?
• Should we recognise Bitcoin as a legal currency?
• Is torture acceptable when used for national security?
• Should mobile phones be banned until a certain age?
• Does technology make us more lonely?
• Should guns be banned in the U.S.?
• Should we make internet companies liable for illegal content shared on their platforms?
• Will posting students’ grades publicly motivate them to perform better?
• Should animals be used for scientific testing?
• Do violent video games make people more violent?
• Should the death penalty be stopped completely?
• Should smoking in public places be completely banned?
• Should doping be allowed in professional sports?
• Should all zoos be closed?
• Should consumers must take responsibility for the plastic waste crisis?
• Is euthanasia justified?
• Is the boarding school system beneficial to children?

Debate topics for children

If you’re trying to think of debate topics for a classroom, consider the following:

• Should mobile phones be allowed at school?
• Is global warming a problem?
• Should violent video games be banned?
• Is school detention beneficial?
• Are celebrities good role models?
• Does social networking have a beneficial effect on society?
• Are single sex schools more effective than co-ed schools?
• Do celebrities get away with more crime than non-celebrities?
• Is cloning animals ethical?
• Are humans to blame for certain animal extinctions?

Debating societies

If you’re interested in debating consider searching for a society or debating events near you:

• Most universities have a debating society and their webpages usually contain lots of useful information and tips.
• Toastmasters
• Use Meetup to find debates close to you

Specific to the UK:

• Sylvans Debating Club
• The Association of Speakers Clubs

Debate Writing

Debate Speech

Debate Speech - Ultimate Writing Guide for Students

People also read

Debate Writing - A Comprehensive Writing Guide

Interesting Debate Topics and Ideas for Students

Types of Debate - A Complete Overview & Examples

Free Debate Examples for All Academic Levels

Best Debate Tips for Students

Advanced Debating Techniques for Students

Struggling to compose an impactful debate speech that captivates your audience and secures a win? 

You're not alone. Crafting a persuasive and well-structured debate speech is a challenge faced by numerous students. The process of articulating your thoughts, organizing arguments can be challenging.

However, fear not! This blog post is your comprehensive guide, presenting a step-by-step approach to empower you in constructing a debate speech. We’ve included examples and tips to make sure your speech captures attention and ensures a compelling and victorious performance.

So, keep reading.

• 1. What Is A Debate Speech?
• 2. How To Prepare For Debate Speech?
• 3. Debate Speech Examples for Students
• 4. Tips for an Effective Debate Speech
• 5. Debate Speech Topics

What Is A Debate Speech?

A debate speech is a formal presentation where you argue for or against a specific topic. 

It involves structured arguments presented in different sections, aiming to persuade the audience with facts and convincing points. It's a way of discussing and trying to show why your side is the right one on a particular subject.

Key Elements of A Debate Speech

A debate typically includes several essential elements to effectively communicate your position and persuade the audience. These elements form the building blocks of a strong debate speech:

• Opening Statements: These kick off the debate, presenting the main arguments for your side or against the motion. It sets the tone for the discussion.
• Rebuttals: In this stage, you respond to the arguments made by the opposing side, highlighting weaknesses or presenting counterpoints.
• Summary: Towards the end of the debate, a summary is provided to reinforce your main arguments and explain why your perspective is stronger. This section aims to leave a lasting impression on the audience.
• Use of Evidence: Supporting your arguments with evidence, facts, and examples strengthens your position and makes your speech more convincing.
• Logical Reasoning: Presenting arguments in a clear, logical sequence enhances the coherence and persuasiveness of your speech.
• Rhetorical Appeal: Adding appeals like ethos, pathos and logos to your speech can engage the audience, making your points more relatable and impactful.

How To Prepare For Debate Speech?

Creating a compelling debate speech requires a methodical approach that ensures a clear, convincing, and organized presentation. Let's delve into the detailed steps for an effective preparation:

Choosing a Position

Start by selecting a clear stance or position regarding the debate topic. Decide whether you are arguing for or against the motion. Understanding and committing to your position forms the foundation of your speech.

Conducting Thorough Research

Gathering information for your debate speech is really important. Look at different sources like books, reliable websites, and experts' ideas. 

Find facts, numbers, and real stories that support what you want to say. It's key to use strong and trusted information that backs up your side of the argument. 

When you collect different types of information, it makes your speech stronger and more convincing. This way, you'll be well-prepared to explain your ideas during the debate.

Structure The Key Points

After research and collecting points, organize your main arguments in a clear and logical manner to effectively convey your position in the debate. Set sufficient time to each key point to ensure they're adequately developed and presented. 

You can do this by following a debate format. Here is a standard debate speech format for a 20-15 minutes long debate:

How to Start a Debate Speech

Crafting a compelling opening for your speech involves capturing the audience's attention while introducing key points of discussion. 

You can achieve this by using attention-grabbing techniques such as sharing an eye-opening fact, a powerful quote, or a personal anecdote related to the topic. 

Additionally, it's beneficial to briefly outline the key areas of discussion that you'll cover in your speech. By providing a sneak peek of the main points, you offer the audience a roadmap of what's to come. 

This not only piques the audience's interest but also helps them anticipate and follow the structure of your speech.

Structure Your Arguments

Structuring arguments in the debate speech means organizing your ideas in a way that makes sense to others. 

A well-structured argument often uses the P-E-E format, which stands for Point, Evidence, Explanation (P-E-E):

• Point or Reason: Begin by stating your main argument or reason. This is the central idea you want to convey in support of your position.
• Evidence: Provide evidence, facts, or examples that support your point. This evidence should be reliable and back up what you're saying.
• Explanation: Explain how your evidence supports your point. Make it clear to your audience why this evidence is important and how it links to your argument.

This structure helps make your arguments more persuasive and clear. It enables you to present your points effectively, support them with evidence, and explain why that evidence matters in the context of your argument.

Address Counterarguments (Rebuttals)

Addressing counterarguments involves anticipating the opposing viewpoints and crafting responses, known as rebuttals , within your speech. A rebuttal is a persuasive counter-argument that challenges or opposes the points raised by the other side.

By thinking ahead and having strong responses, you showcase a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. 

This approach makes your argument stronger and shows your skill in defending your position, boosting your speech's credibility.

How to End a Debate Speech

Concluding your debate speech effectively is as important as starting it strong. Here are two impactful ways to conclude your speech:

• Summarize Key Points with a Call to Action Example: "In conclusion, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that [your stance on the topic]. As we leave here today, let's not merely acknowledge the importance of [debate topic] but commit to [call to action], ensuring a brighter future for all."
• End with a Powerful Quote or Statement Example: "As [relevant figure] once wisely said, '[insert impactful quote].' Let these words guide us in our understanding of [debate topic]. Together, we can [highlight the desired outcome or change]."

Review And Practice

The last step is to review and practice a lot. Read through your speech to make sure it all makes sense and fits the time limit. 

Practice how you talk, how fast or slow, and how you use your body while speaking. Also, be ready to answer questions or handle different arguments. 

Do a few final practice rounds to feel more confident and comfortable. This way, you'll be well-prepared and ready to deliver a strong debate speech.

Debate Speech Examples for Students

For students, understanding how to structure and present a debate speech is crucial. Here are some debate speech samples to help you grasp the basics of debating:

First Speaker Debate Speech Example

2nd Speaker Debate Speech Example

3rd Speaker Debate Speech Example

Short Example Of Debate Speech

Debate Speech Structure

Examples can serve as a great starting point. Check out more expertly crafted debate examples for inspiration!

Tips for an Effective Debate Speech

Crafting a persuasive and impactful debate speech requires careful consideration and strategic planning. Here are key tips to enhance the effectiveness of your presentation:

• Tailor language to match the audience's demographics and interests.
• Strengthen arguments with credible sources and diverse perspectives.
• Organize with a clear introduction, well-developed body, and strong conclusion for a logical flow.
• Capture attention with a compelling quote, question, or anecdote.
• Support arguments with relevant statistics, examples, and real-world scenarios.
• Anticipate opposing viewpoints and incorporate strong rebuttals.
• Clearly articulate and repeat key ideas to reinforce your stance.
• Maintain a dynamic and engaging delivery by varying tone and pace.
• Pay attention to body language, eye contact, and gestures.
• Allocate time wisely for each speech segment to ensure a well-paced presentation.
• Be prepared to adapt to unexpected changes during the debate.
• Practice multiple times to enhance clarity, emphasis, and pacing, boosting confidence.

Need to polish your debate? Have a look at this in-depth blog on debate techniques and get effective tips!

Debate Speech Topics

Here are some unique topic ideas for you to write a debate on.

• Credit cards are more harmful than debit cards.
• We are becoming too dependent on technology.
• Marriage is an outdated concept.
• Homework is necessary with regard to the learning process.
• Being a college graduate in the United States is necessary for a successful career.
• It is a good idea to have laptops in classrooms.
• Facebook is a better social platform than Twitter.
• Cell phones can be used as educational tools.
• Junk food must be banned in high schools and colleges.
• The Prime Minister of any state enjoys more power than the president.

Can’t pick a topic? Check out this extensive blog with multiple debate topics and get unique ideas!

You are now better equipped to confidently prepare and deliver your debate speech.

However, if public speaking isn’t your forte or it feels overwhelming, our service is here to help. 

Simply buy speech from our expert writers and receive a persuasive and effective piece of writing. Plus, with our satisfaction guarantee, you can get your speech revised as many times as you want. 

So, just ask us to " write an essay for me " and let us help you!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Cathy has been been working as an author on our platform for over five years now. She has a Masters degree in mass communication and is well-versed in the art of writing. Cathy is a professional who takes her work seriously and is widely appreciated by clients for her excellent writing skills.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• All Insights
• Top-Rated Articles
• How-to Guides
• For Parents

Rebutting Arguments - A Skill Every Debater Should Master

Introduction

If you're a debater, no matter your experience, you've probably heard of the rebuttal. However, if you're new to debate or just don't know much about it yet, then this article will give you some insight into how to use this vital tool in your next round!

What is a Rebuttal?

A rebuttal is a way to disprove, weaken, or turn your opponent's arguments. You can use it to expand on your own arguments or attack the opponent's position.

It is important to note that in general, there are three parts of a debate: introduction, rebuttal and summary.

In the introduction, you give an overview of the case you are making; in the rebuttal, you provide additional evidence or arguments to support your case, while also disproving any arguments of your opponents; and in the summary, you summarize your main ideas and offer analysis as to how the debate went (hopefully in your favour!). The key to a good rebuttal is to focus on the logic and reasoning behind your counterargument. You don’t want to get caught up in attacking your opponent personally or making personal attacks on their character!

Why Rebuttals are important in Debate?

Although you may not think it, debate is a competitive sport. Imagine rebuttals like defensive moves in other sports:

In tennis, you return the serve, not just hit offensive shots. The same is true for table tennis (ping pong), and badminton.  Tennis wouldn't be very much fun if each player served and then the point was over, right? What makes the sport engaging to watch and play is that the ball goes back and forth over the net until a player hits too strong a shot or until the other player makes a mistake.

Think of rebuttals like this! You want your rebuttal to either be too strong that your opponent can simply not return it, or to use rebuttals to force your opponent to make a mistake that leaves you an easy opening.

Before debates be sure to put yourself in your opponents' shoes and think of what arguments they are likely to run, then start poking holes in the reasoning, evidence, or impact. Not sounding so easy? That's ok! They may not be easy for every debater, but that's exactly why you should try your best to practice them - rebuttals can certainly win debates! Next we'll go over some types of rebuttals and how you can use them.

Types of Rebuttals

Offensive rebuttal : This rebuttal is used to attack your opponent's arguments, usually by challenging their logic or evidence. It can be the hardest to pull off, but can win debates if done right!

Defensive rebuttal : This rebuttal is used to defend yourself from attack, usually through explanations and clarifications of why your opponent's arguments are wrong or irrelevant. While this may not win a debate outright, it will keep your arguments standing!

• Turning Rebuttal: This rebuttal does not aim to disprove your opponent's argument, but instead looks to show that their argument somehow supports your side of the debate

Counter rebuttal : A counter-rebuttal is a specific type of defensive response in which you directly address the points brought up by the opposition during their opening statement with new information that refutes those claims, such as statistics or expert testimony.

Closing Rebuttal : This final argument gives you one last chance to persuade your audience before they vote on who won the debate round! Don't be afraid to include emotive language & persuasive techniques here!

Let's take a look at the 2 more commonly used types of rebuttals:

Offensive Rebuttal

The rebuttal is a tool every debater should learn. It's an argument that you make to counter your opponent's main point and to undermine their argument. The primary goal of a rebuttal is to show that they are wrong, but it can also be used to make them look bad or like they have no idea what they're talking about.

It's important to remember that you can't just throw out any old argument and expect it to work. Your rebuttal needs to be based on the evidence they presented , and you should use the same kind of reasoning that they did. Try out this simple structure:

• Our opponents stated that: [Summary of opponents argument]
• However, this is flawed because: [Flaw in reasoning, evidence, or impact]
• We say that: [Counterargument, reinforce your argument on opposite side]
• Therefore: [Their argument is flawed & should not be considered in this debate]

Defensive Rebuttal

The rebuttal is an opportunity for you to defend your position, but it can also be used to rebut the arguments of the opposition. A defensive rebuttal is a type of rebuttal that allows you to defend against an argument made by your opponent.

To use this strategy effectively, think about what their argument was and how they presented it: did they make any claims? If so, what were those claims? Then state how those claims are wrong or misleading by providing evidence from sources like peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks (preferably written by experts in their fields).

In addition to defending yourself against specific points made by others during debate rounds, keep in mind that some people will try using fallacies against you when arguing with them over certain issues; this means knowing how these fallacies work so that when someone tries using one against you without notice beforehand then simply remind them "that isn't relevant" before continuing on with whatever point was being discussed previously.

Using the Opening Affirmative Point to Shape the Debate's Topic

The first affirmative point is a great opportunity to frame the debate's topic in a way that supports your case. It will also give you an idea of how your opponent wants to respond, which can provide valuable information when making rebuttals and counter-offers later in the round.

The first negative point should respond directly to this framing by either challenging it or building on it with another framing device (such as "we still need X because Y"). This will help set up your rebuttal by allowing you to show how their argument has failed based on what they said in their own speech.

A rebuttal is a response to an argument. It can be used to counter arguments, defend your own arguments and attack your opponents' arguments. In addition, a rebuttal can be used to explain your own arguments or clarify what you mean by certain terms or phrases in them. Rebuttals are an important part of debate, and they can be used in many different ways. They allow you to shape the debate's topic in your favor. The best way to learn how to use them effectively is through practice and experimentation with different types of rebuttals until you find one that works well for you.

If this was helpful, check out an additional article HERE explaining how to prepare for your next debate competition.

Related Insights

Debate class: know which arguments you need to prioritize, debate class: check these three remaining strategies, the art of persuasion - how to win an argument using toulmin’s model (part 2).

• 5 Prep Tips for BP
• Top Speech Introductions
• Public Speaking and Debate Competitions
• Incorporating Humor
• Logical Fallacies
• How-To: Prepare for Debate Tournaments
• How-To: Judge a Debate
• How-To: Win a BP Debate
• How-To: Win An Argument
• How-To: Improve at Home
• Team China Wins World Championship
• Ariel Wins Tournament
• Jaxon Speaks Up
• Tina Improves

Welcome to the DAV Website The DAV is a non-profit association which exists to promote debate. It is the peak debating body in Victoria and runs large competitions for adults and for schools across Victoria. It provides training and resources for debaters, teachers and adjudicators.

• Schools Competition resource guide
• DAV Teacher Inservice
• Topics archive
• Australia-Asia Debating Guide
• Training DVD
• Points of Information
• Chairing a debate
• Speaker roles
• Definitions
• Team line & split
• Speech Template
• Matter, method, & manner
• Introduction
• Getting more Matter
• Improving your Matter

Speaker Roles

Debating is a team sport – you must work together when preparing you case and during the debate. Each speaker within the team has a certain role to play. It is important that each speaker understands and fulfils their role.

These speaker roles might sound a bit restrictive, but they help the debate run smoothly and clearly, so that everyone in the room understands what the debate is about and what each team stands for.

In each debate, there are two teams of three speakers. The team which argues for the topic is called the affirmative. The team arguing against the topic is called the negative. Each speaker speaks once for a defined period. The order of speakers is: first affirmative, first negative, second affirmative, second negative, third affirmative, third negative. Following this final speech, the debating component is done, and the adjudicator takes time to give feedback and award the win.

First Affirmative

The first affirmative’s role is to set out their team’s interpretation of the topic (the contention/team case), define the topic, outline the team split, and present arguments.

Define the topic

The first task of the first affirmative speaker is to define the topic.  The definition specifies the important issue(s) in contention, and places boundaries on the issues that can be argued in the debate. Certain words will have vague or multiple meanings. The definition should note the meaning of key words in the topic. Definitions of words do not need to be dictionary definitions/quote directly from the dictionary.

For example, if the topic was ‘that we should ban junk food in schools,’ the words which are vague and may need definition are: we, junk food, and, schools. Defining ‘we’ says who or where the topic applies (Australia, Victoria, the world). Defining ‘schools’ says what is being impacted - is it primary, secondary schools, or both? Defining ‘junk food’ notes the subject, and can be used to include certain foods, or exclude certain foods. However, as there is a common sense understanding of what junk food is, it can be fine to just say ‘junk food’ if the affirmative team wants. The words in the topic like ‘that’, ‘should’, ‘ban’ and ‘in’ don’t require definition as they are not the issues of contention.

A definition can be short, and to the point. Using the sample topic, the first affirmative could define the topic in their speech as: ‘we define the topic to mean that Australia should ban junk food from all schools, both primary and secondary.’

The team split

It is essential to let the audience know early on in the debate exactly which way your team will be heading and the approach they will be taking to the debate. The split introduces the first and second speakers, and notes what their arguments will be.

Present arguments

First and second speakers of both teams present arguments. The arguments said by the first speaker should be different, and not overlap, with the arguments of the second speaker. The arguments should be supporting your team’s contention (agreeing or disagreeing with the topic). The first affirmative should present the arguments allocated to the first speaker.

First Negative

The role of the first negative is very similar to the first affirmative. The first negative’s role is to outlines their team’s contention, team split, rebut the arguments of the first affirmative, and present arguments.

The main difference between first affirmative and negative is that the first affirmative defines the topic, which the first negative does not (typically) do so, and, that the first negative offers rebuttal. 

The Definitional Challenge

In most circumstances, the definition provided by the affirmative is sufficient for the debate. On occasion, the negative may have a substantial disagreement with the definition provided by the Affirmative. If this is the case, then these must be dealt with immediately. To successfully challenge the definition, the first negative must prove to the adjudicator that they have the most reasonable definition (thus showing the affirmative’s definition was not reasonable).

A rebuttal is a counterargument. The speaker should attack the main theme of the affirmative argument, as well as the specific issues raised by the first affirmative speaker. It is important to remember that you are rebutting the arguments the opposing speaker has raised, not the opposing speaker personally.

Outline team split

Like the first affirmative, they should give an outline of the team case and the arguments to be dealt with by each speaker.

First and second speakers of both teams present arguments. The arguments said by the first speaker should be different, and not overlap, with the arguments of the second speaker. The arguments should be supporting your team’s contention (agreeing or disagreeing with the topic). The first negative should present the arguments allocated to the first speaker.

Second Affirmative & Second Negative

The second speakers of both teams have the same speaker role. They both rebut their opposition’s arguments, and present their own arguments.

Defend the definition if necessary

If there are any definitional issues in the debate, then these need to be dealt with and hopefully fully cleared up. Both speakers should keep in mind, like the first negative, that they are trying to prove that their definition is the most reasonable.

Each speaker should attack the main arguments of their opponents. The second affirmative should clearly identify the major areas of disagreement with the with the negative case and attack the specific arguments of the first negative.

The second negative needs to attack the main arguments of the affirmative, focusing on the specific arguments raised by the second affirmative.

The speaker should then present their allocated arguments.

Third Affirmative & Negative

The third speakers of both teams have the same role: to rebut their opposition’s arguments, and to summarise their team’s arguments.

Third speakers do not present arguments! New matter is illegal from the third speaker from the Negative, and whilst it is legal for the third Affirmative speaker to introduce new material, you are best advised to leave that speaker as much time as possible for rebuttal. If it is an important argument, it should not be left to the last speaker in your team!

The third speaker should rebut all the arguments raised by their opposition across the debate, not just the arguments raised by the speaker before them. They should to present an overview by analysing the main themes of the debate. [29]They should identify the essential issues on which the teams have disagreed, rebut the important arguments of the opposing team and defend any important attacks made against their own team’s case.

Summary of their team’s arguments

Both speakers should conclude their speech with a brief summary of their teams’ case.

About the DAV   |    News    |    Contact Us dav.com.au © 2024

How to Write a Constructive Speech

Phee paradise.

During a policy debate, a speaker takes a position for or against a proposition and uses a constructive speech to argue his side of the issue. Both the affirmative team and the negative team give constructive speeches. The first affirms the resolution and calls for change; the second challenges the affirmative position. Affirmative speeches begin the debate, while negative speeches respond to the assertions of the affirmative speaker. The two speeches are structured in slightly different ways.

Gather research that supports your position. Organize it sequentially, so that as you write your speech one point will follow from another. Support every point in the speech with facts from the research. If you are writing an affirmative speech, follow steps 3 and 4. If you are writing a negative speech, follow steps 5 and 6.

Begin a positive constructive speech introduction with an attention-grabber and follow it with a restatement of the proposition or resolution. Complete the introduction by listing the reasons you agree with the proposition.

Define the terms you are using in your speech, then give the reasons why you are calling for change; list them one by one. Follow this with a clear explanation of the planned change. Conclude with a call for support of the affirmative position.

Remember that a negative constructive speech is a response to the affirmative speech. State the reasons you are against your opponent's plan and why your opponent's points are wrong. Follow this with a counter-plan and explain why it is more suitable than the affirmative plan.

Disagree with the definitions given by your opponent and offer your own definitions. State the flaws in the proposed change one by one: its disadvantages, negative consequences and faulty assumptions. Conclude with a statement that the affirmative plan must fail or offer a plan of your own.

• Policy debate is carefully structured by several associations. Many high schools and colleges offer coaching and instruction on all aspects, including speech writing.
• 1 "Writing an Affirmative Constructive Speech"; James F. Ackerman; Purdue University Center for Democratic Citizenship; New York

About the Author

Phee Paradise began writing professionally in 1996 when she covered town government for "The Sentinel," a weekly newspaper in Belchertown, Mass. She has written how-to manuals for student leaders and currently writes book reviews for a writers' blog. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in English from San Diego State University and a Master of Arts in communication from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Related Articles

How to Write a Persuasive Essay for the 8th Grade

How to Write an Analysis on an Editorial

How to Write an Argumentative Speech

How to Close a Debate Speech

How to Write a Policy Speech

How to Write a Discursive Essay

How to Write a Formal Petition

How to Write About an Ethical Dilemma

Kinds of Debates

How to Write a Pros & Cons Essay

How to Resolve a Conflict With Your Ex-Girlfriend &...

Key Ideas to Help Write an Argument & Persuasion Essay

How to Write Constructive Essays

How to Write a Middle School Election Speech

How to Write a Persuasive Essay

How to Conduct a Debate in Fifth Grade

How to End a Long-Distance Relationship on Good Terms

How to Write a Policy Analysis

Can You Talk Face-to-Face With an iPhone to an iPod...

How to Do a Debate Flow Chart

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

Instant Debate Speech Maker Online

Debates are an excellent opportunity to develop many personal skills, become a more open-minded person, and learn new information. Through this activity, students improve critical thinking, public speaking, teamwork skills, increase their self-esteem, and learn to disagree with others.

Preparing for a debate can take a lot of time, which is why our team has created this tool and guide for you. With our debate speech maker, you no longer have to sit for hours and think about how to formulate your argument correctly! Also, on this page you will learn many useful facts about debates and get tips for preparing for them.

• 📢 Introduction to the Tool

🗣️ What Is a Debate?

👍 debate maker benefits, ✏️ how to write a debate speech, 🔗 references, 📢 debate script maker: an introduction.

If you’ve decided to participate in a debate, you probably know that this activity requires a lot of preparation. Sometimes, you may receive the topic of your debate in advance so that you have time to prepare thoroughly for it. But also, you may be given the subject on the day of the debate, and then you’ll have much less time to prepare. In either case, our debate maker will be an indispensable assistant!

When comparing AI vs human writers, artificial intelligence excels in the speed of content creation, although it loses in creativity. Unlike when using other AI chat bots, you don't have to bother with creating successful prompts. Using this tool is simple - to instantly make a speech, you’ll need to take these four steps:

• Type in the topic of the debate.
• State your position and audience.
• Indicate whether you are replying to an opponent.
• Click “Generate” and get your result!

A debate is a structured and formalized argumentative exchange between two or more opposing sides . While this practice is usually associated with the election season , it can also be often found in schools or colleges. Participants, categorized as either the “pro” or “con” side, systematically present and defend their perspectives on a given topic. They use evidence to back up their claims and. Each side takes turns articulating arguments and responding to their opponent's points.

The primary objective of a debate is persuasion - convincing the opposition and the audience. Although debates often lack a declared winner, they may conclude with a vote or judgment from adjudicators in formal settings. Informal debates can persist until one side concedes.

Debate Terminology Examples for Students

Here, you can become familiar with the basic terms. It’ll be beneficial for you to learn them to make it easier to grasp the debate structure further.

• Adjudicator - An impartial observer who evaluates the debate. Such moderators provide feedback on the quality of arguments and overall performance. Also, they can contribute to determining the winner in formal debates.
• An affirmative - A team or speaker supporting the motion in a debate. Affirmatives present arguments in favor of the proposition. They aim to convince the audience or adjudicators of the motion's validity.
• Motion - The central topic, idea, or statement being debated. The motion frames the discussion and determines the stances of the affirmative and opposition sides. Debaters construct arguments either in support or against this subject.
• Chairperson - The person responsible for moderating and overseeing the debate. Their goal is to maintain order and ensure adherence to the rules. The chairperson may introduce speakers and the motion.
• Card - A card is a paragraph or several paragraphs taken from an authoritative journalistic or scholarly source that proves the validity of a particular argument. It should be a verbatim quotation without additions or paraphrasing. It is important to explain the quote and how it relates to the argument.
• Floor - The general audience or participants who are not actively engaged in the debate but may have the opportunity to pose questions. They can make contributions during designated segments. The floor adds an interactive element to the discussion.
• Opposition/a Negative - A team or speaker taking an opposing stance on the core topic. The opposition presents arguments countering the proposition. Such arguments should demonstrate flaws in the affirmative's position and persuade the audience that the motion is unsupported.
• The first speaker - The initial speaker of a team. They introduce and establish the main arguments supporting or opposing the motion. Their speech should set the tone for the team's position and outline the critical points to be developed by subsequent speakers.
• The second speaker - The second speaker introduces additional evidence and reinforces the team's position. They aim to strengthen their affirmative/opposing case and respond to the arguments from the other team.
• The third speaker - The last speaker should summarize the team's key points. They may also respond to opposition’s reasons raised during the debate. The goal is to leave a lasting impression on the adjudicators before the discussion concludes.
• Reply speeches - Reply speeches are the concluding words from both the affirmative and opposition sides. These speeches are often shorter, not more than three minutes. Such speeches are the last chance to influence the overall impression, so they should strongly support your ideas.

What Does the Maker of the Argument Do in a Debate?

In a debate, the first speaker, whether on the affirmative or opposition side, should:

• Formulate a clear and concise stance on the motion.
• Organize arguments logically, presenting a structured case.
• Support points with relevant facts and examples.
• Convince adjudicators and the audience of the credibility of their position.

The Structure of a Debate

Whether an academic debate or a parliamentary one, the structure and ground rules essentially remain the same.

In this section, we'll briefly explain how your proceedings are going to look like:

• Gathering the sides . At this stage, you should determine the teams and their participants. They are divided into affirmative and negative sides. As a rule, the debates should include three speakers , who will take turns and, at each stage, strengthen their position. All participants should meet 15 minutes before the start to prepare materials .
• Starting the debate . Participants should determine the debate’s time limit, as speeches cannot last nonstop. Usually, each speaker is given a maximum of 3 minutes for their presentation. At the beginning, the speakers should introduce themselves. The duration of the answer is regulated by the timekeeper , who should give a bell 30 seconds before the end of the speaker's time to start summarizing.
• Debating the topic . The core of the debate involves a structured exchange between the sides. The first speaker for the affirmative introduces the motion, presenting key arguments. The opposition's first speaker responds, presenting counterarguments. This pattern continues with subsequent speakers building upon and responding to the points raised. The debate format could also include cross-examination or questioning segments.
• Finishing the debate . Both sides deliver final counter-speeches summarizing key arguments. The adjudicators then assess the overall performance of each side. The persuasiveness of the arguments presented assists in the audience’s decision-making. Participants may engage in discussions and receive feedback . After the debate, each team is given the opportunity to thank everyone in attendance.

As you've probably already realized, getting ready for such a significant event will take a lot of time. You'll need to gather your thoughts, stay level-headed, and be assertive in your stance. This preparation process can be quite overwhelming. That's why our debate script maker is the perfect solution!

This debate writer has many advantages:

Our tool is a great way to save time and get that initial burst of inspiration for your debate. However, that is just the beginning. You will still need to edit and finalize this speech. Additionally, you may find it helpful to learn how to write one yourself.

The following steps will show you how to improve your speech and prepare you for your future debates:

• Compelling beginning . The opening of your speech is of the utmost significance. Your task is to captivate the audience and create the overall atmosphere of the speech. We suggest using a hook at the very beginning. It can be a question or a fact intended to capture the attention of your opposition and the audience. You could also use a quote from a famous person, an interesting statistic, a rhetorical question, or even a relevant personal anecdote.
• Presenting your arguments . This is the time to talk about your position on the topic. Be sure to formulate a concise thesis statement . After that, you should provide the arguments that support it. Explain each point clearly to avoid misunderstanding among the audience.
• Explaining the position . Follow a structure where each of your arguments is followed by evidence and then justification. Proof builds credibility and engages the listeners. Ensure that you have data only from relevant and reliable sources.
• Summarizing . In the concluding part of your persuasive speech, you should reiterate your thesis and essential arguments. Emphasize the value of your position. It’s your last opportunity to impress the judge and the listeners. Round it off by offering a provocative question, a recommendation, or talking about your predictions for the future of the subject.
• Confidence and consistency . After writing your speech, you should refine its structure so that you have smooth transitions from one idea to the next. Use connecting words to tie your arguments together. Afterward, practice your speech and make sure it's clear . Your gestures, facial expressions, and intonation are ways to communicate with listeners. Be convincing but not pushy, and use a moderate pace.

We wish you good luck in your debates! And if you need to create a different kind of speech, try our informative speech generator .

Updated: Jan 26th, 2024

• What is a debate? – Vanesa Velkova, European Commission
• How debating works – Law Society of Scotland
• Debating: A Brief Introduction for Beginners – Debating SA Incorporated
• Debate Timing & Structure - Debating Matters
• How do you structure your debate speech to capture the attention and interest of your audience? - LinkedIn
• Free Essays
• Writing Tools
• Lit. Guides
• Donate a Paper
• Referencing Guides
• Free Textbooks
• Tongue Twisters
• Job Openings
• Expert Application
• Video Contest
• Writing Scholarship
• Discount Codes
• IvyPanda Shop
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Copyright Principles
• DMCA Request
• Service Notice

Our debate speech maker tool is the perfect solution for those who wish to deliver the perfect response to their opponents. Easily generate a speech on any topic and wow the audience with your eloquence. Additionally, learn all about debates, their structure, and find useful tips.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Columbia university is at the center of a growing showdown over the war in gaza and the limits of free speech..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

[TRAIN SCREECHING]

Well, you can hear the helicopter circling. This is Asthaa Chaturvedi. I’m a producer with “The Daily.” Just walked out of the 116 Street Station. It’s the main station for Columbia’s Morningside Heights campus. And it’s day seven of the Gaza solidarity encampment, where a hundred students were arrested last Thursday.

So on one side of Broadway, you see camera crews. You see NYPD officers all lined up. There’s barricades, steel barricades, caution tape. This is normally a completely open campus. And I’m able to — all members of the public, you’re able to walk through.

[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

Looks like international media is here.

Have your IDs out. Have your IDs out.

Students lining up to swipe in to get access to the University. ID required for entry.

Swipe your ID, please.

Hi, how are you, officer? We’re journalists with “The New York Times.”

You’re not going to get in, all right? I’m sorry.

Hi. Can I help please?

Yeah, it’s total lockdown here at Columbia.

Please have your IDs out ready to swipe.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today, the story of how Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators, and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech. I spoke with my colleague, Nick Fandos.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

It’s Thursday, April 25.

Nick, if we rewind the clock a few months, we end up at a moment where students at several of the country’s best known universities are protesting Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks, its approach to a war in Gaza. At times, those protests are happening peacefully, at times with rhetoric that is inflammatory. And the result is that the leaders of those universities land before Congress. But the president of Columbia University, which is the subject we’re going to be talking about today, is not one of the leaders who shows up for that testimony.

That’s right. So the House Education Committee has been watching all these protests on campus. And the Republican Chairwoman decides, I’m going to open an investigation, look at how these administrations are handling it, because it doesn’t look good from where I sit. And the House last winter invites the leaders of several of these elite schools, Harvard, Penn, MIT, and Columbia, to come and testify in Washington on Capitol Hill before Congress.

Now, the President of Columbia has what turns out to be a very well-timed, pre-planned trip to go overseas and speak at an international climate conference. So Minouche Shafik isn’t going to be there. So instead, the presidents of Harvard, and Penn, and MIT show up. And it turned out to be a disaster for these universities.

They were asked very pointed questions about the kind of speech taking place on their campuses, and they gave really convoluted academic answers back that just baffled the committee. But there was one question that really embodied the kind of disconnect between the Committee — And it wasn’t just Republicans, Republicans and Democrats on the Committee — and these college presidents. And that’s when they were asked a hypothetical.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.

And two of the presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, they’re unwilling to say in this really kind of intense back and forth that this speech would constitute a violation of their rules.

It can be, depending on the context.

What’s the context?

Targeted at an individual. Is it pervasive?

It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them?

And it sets off a firestorm.

It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.

Members of Congress start calling for their resignations. Alumni are really, really ticked off. Trustees of the University start to wonder, I don’t know that these leaders really have got this under control. And eventually, both of them lose their jobs in a really high profile way.

Right. And as you’ve hinted at, for somewhat peculiar scheduling reasons, Columbia’s President escapes this disaster of a hearing in what has to be regarded as the best timing in the history of the American Academy.

Yeah, exactly. And Columbia is watching all this play out. And I think their first response was relief that she was not in that chair, but also a recognition that, sooner or later, their turn was going to come back around and they were going to have to sit before Congress.

Why were they so certain that they would probably end up before Congress and that this wasn’t a case of completely dodging a bullet?

Well, they remain under investigation by the committee. But also, as the winter wears on, all the same intense protests just continue unabated. So in many ways, Columbia’s like these other campuses. But in some ways, it’s even more intense. This is a university that has both one of the largest Jewish student populations of any of its peers. But it also has a large Arab and Muslim student population, a big Middle Eastern studies program. It has a dual degree program in Tel Aviv.

And it’s a university on top of all that that has a real history of activism dating back to the 1960s. So when students are recruited or choose to come to Columbia, they’re actively opting into a campus that prides itself on being an activist community. It’s in the middle of New York City. It’s a global place. They consider the city and the world, really, like a classroom to Columbia.

In other words, if any campus was going to be a hotbed of protest and debate over this conflict, it was going to be Columbia University.

Exactly. And when this spring rolls around, the stars finally align. And the same congressional committee issues another invitation to Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s President, to come and testify. And this time, she has no excuse to say no.

But presumably, she is well aware of exactly what testifying before this committee entails and is highly prepared.

Columbia knew this moment was coming. They spent months preparing for this hearing. They brought in outside consultants, crisis communicators, experts on anti-Semitism. The weekend before the hearing, she actually travels down to Washington to hole up in a war room, where she starts preparing her testimony with mock questioners and testy exchanges to prep her for this. And she’s very clear on what she wants to try to do.

Where her counterparts had gone before the committee a few months before and looked aloof, she wanted to project humility and competence, to say, I know that there’s an issue on my campus right now with some of these protests veering off into anti-Semitic incidents. But I’m getting that under control. I’m taking steps in good faith to make sure that we restore order to this campus, while allowing people to express themselves freely as well.

So then the day of her actual testimony arrives. And just walk us through how it goes.

The Committee on Education and Workforce will come to order. I note that —

So Wednesday morning rolls around. And President Shafik sits at the witness stand with two of her trustees and the head of Columbia’s new anti-Semitism task force.

Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best and at worst has become a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people.

And right off the bat, they’re put through a pretty humbling litany of some of the worst hits of what’s been happening on campus.

For example, just four days after the harrowing October 7 attack, a former Columbia undergraduate beat an Israeli student with a stick.

The Republican Chairwoman of the Committee, Virginia Foxx, starts reminding her that there was a student who was actually hit with a stick on campus. There was another gathering more recently glorifying Hamas and other terrorist organizations, and the kind of chants that have become an everyday chorus on campus, which many Jewish students see as threatening. But when the questioning starts, President Shafik is ready. One of the first ones she gets is the one that tripped up her colleagues.

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct, Mr. Greenwald?

And she answers unequivocally.

Dr. Shafik?

Yes, it does.

And, Professor —

That would be a violation of Columbia’s rules. They would be punished.

As President of Columbia, what is it like when you hear chants like, by any means necessary or Intifada Revolution?

I find those chants incredibly distressing. And I wish profoundly that people would not use them on our campus.

And in some of the most interesting exchanges of the hearing, President Shafik actually opens Columbia’s disciplinary books.

We have already suspended 15 students from Columbia. We have six on disciplinary probation. These are more disciplinary actions that have been taken probably in the last decade at Columbia. And —

She talks about the number of students that have been suspended, but also the number of faculty that she’s had removed from the classroom that are being investigated for comments that either violate some of Columbia’s rules or make students uncomfortable. One case in particular really underscores this.

And that’s of a Middle Eastern studies professor named Joseph Massad. He wrote an essay not long after Hamas invaded Israel and killed 1,200 people, according to the Israeli government, where he described that attack with adjectives like awesome. Now, he said they’ve been misinterpreted, but a lot of people have taken offense to those comments.

Ms. Stefanik, you’re recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairwoman. I want to follow up on my colleague, Rep Walberg’s question regarding Professor Joseph Massad. So let me be clear, President —

And so Representative Elise Stefanik, the same Republican who had tripped up Claudine Gay of Harvard and others in the last hearing, really starts digging in to President Shafik about these things at Columbia.

He is still Chair on the website. So has he been terminated as Chair?

Congresswoman, I —

And Shafik’s answers are maybe a little surprising.

— before getting back to you. I can confirm —

I know you confirmed that he was under investigation.

Yes, I can confirm that. But I —

Did you confirm he was still the Chair?

He says that Columbia is taking his case seriously. In fact, he’s under investigation right now.

Well, let me ask you this.

I need to check.

Will you make the commitment to remove him as Chair?

And when Stefanik presses her to commit to removing him from a campus leadership position —

I think that would be — I think — I would — yes. Let me come back with yes. But I think I — I just want to confirm his current status before I write —

We’ll take that as a yes, that you will confirm that he will no longer be chair.

Shafik seems to pause and think and then agree to it on the spot, almost like she is making administrative decisions with or in front of Congress.

Now, we did some reporting after the fact. And it turns out the Professor didn’t even realize he was under investigation. So he’s learning about this from the hearing too. So what this all adds up to, I think, is a performance so in line with what the lawmakers themselves wanted to hear, that at certain points, these Republicans didn’t quite know what to do with it. They were like the dog that caught the car.

Columbia beats Harvard and UPenn.

One of them, a Republican from Florida, I think at one point even marvelled, well, you beat Harvard and Penn.

Y’all all have done something that they weren’t able to do. You’ve been able to condemn anti-Semitism without using the phrase, it depends on the context. But the —

So Columbia’s president has passed this test before this committee.

Yeah, this big moment that tripped up her predecessors and cost them their jobs, it seems like she has cleared that hurdle and dispatched with the Congressional committee that could have been one of the biggest threats to her presidency.

Without objection, there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned. [BANGS GAVEL]

But back on campus, some of the students and faculty who had been watching the hearing came away with a very different set of conclusions. They saw a president who was so eager to please Republicans in Congress that she was willing to sell out some of the University’s students and faculty and trample on cherished ideas like academic freedom and freedom of expression that have been a bedrock of American higher education for a really long time.

And there was no clearer embodiment of that than what had happened that morning just as President Shafik was going to testify before Congress. A group of students before dawn set up tents in the middle of Columbia’s campus and declared themselves a pro-Palestinian encampment in open defiance of the very rules that Dr. Shafik had put in place to try and get these protests under control.

So these students in real-time are beginning to test some of the things that Columbia’s president has just said before Congress.

Exactly. And so instead of going to celebrate her successful appearance before Congress, Shafik walks out of the hearing room and gets in a black SUV to go right back to that war room, where she’s immediately confronted with a major dilemma. It basically boils down to this, she had just gone before Congress and told them, I’m going to get tough on these protests. And here they were. So either she gets tough and risks inflaming tension on campus or she holds back and does nothing and her words before Congress immediately look hollow.

And what does she decide?

So for the next 24 hours, she tries to negotiate off ramps. She consults with her Deans and the New York Police Department. And it all builds towards an incredibly consequential decision. And that is, for the first time in decades, to call the New York City Police Department onto campus in riot gear and break this thing up, suspend the students involved, and then arrest them.

To essentially eliminate this encampment.

Eliminate the encampment and send a message, this is not going to be tolerated. But in trying to quell the unrest, Shafik actually feeds it. She ends up leaving student protesters and the faculty who support them feeling betrayed and pushes a campus that was already on edge into a full blown crisis.

[SLOW TEMPO MUSIC]

After the break, what all of this has looked like to a student on Columbia’s campus. We’ll be right back.

[PHONE RINGS]

Is this Isabella?

Yes, this is she.

Hi, Isabella. It’s Michael Barbaro from “The Daily.”

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Earlier this week, we called Isabella Ramírez, the Editor in Chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “The Columbia Daily Spectator,” which has been closely tracking both the protests and the University’s response to them since October 7.

So, I mean, in your mind, how do we get to this point? I wonder if you can just briefly describe the key moments that bring us to where we are right now.

Sure. Since October 7, there has certainly been constant escalation in terms of tension on campus. And there have been a variety of moves that I believe have distanced the student body, the faculty, from the University and its administration, specifically the suspension of Columbia’s chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. And that became a huge moment in what was characterized as suppression of pro-Palestinian activism on campus, effectively rendering those groups, quote, unquote, unauthorized.

What was the college’s explanation for that?

They had cited in that suspension a policy which states that a demonstration must be approved within a certain window, and that there must be an advance notice, and that there’s a process for getting an authorized demonstration. But the primary point was this policy that they were referring to, which we later reported, was changed before the suspension.

So it felt a little ad hoc to people?

Yes, it certainly came as a surprise, especially at “Spectator.” We’re nerds of the University in the sense that we are familiar with faculty and University governance. But even to us, we had no idea where this policy was coming from. And this suspension was really the first time that it entered most students’ sphere.

Columbia’s campus is so known for its activism. And so in my time of being a reporter, of being an editor, I’ve overseen several protests. And I’ve never seen Columbia penalize a group for, quote, unquote, not authorizing a protest. So that was certainly, in our minds, unprecedented.

And I believe part of the justification there was, well, this is a different time. And I think that is a reasonable thing to say. But I think a lot of students, they felt it was particularly one-sided, that it was targeting a specific type of speech or a specific type of viewpoint. Although, the University, of course, in its explicit policies, did not outline, and was actually very explicit about not targeting specific viewpoints —

So just to be super clear, it felt to students — and it sounds like, journalistically, it felt to you — that the University was coming down in a uniquely one-sided way against students who were supporting Palestinian rights and may have expressed some frustrations with Israel in that moment.

Yes. Certainly —

Isabella says that this was just the beginning of a really tense period between student protesters and the University. After those two student groups were suspended, campus protests continued. Students made a variety of demands. They asked that the University divest from businesses that profit from Israel’s military operations in Gaza. But instead of making any progress, the protests are met with further crackdown by the University.

And so as Isabella and her colleagues at the college newspaper see it, there’s this overall chilling effect that occurs. Some students become fearful that if they participate in any demonstrations, they’re going to face disciplinary action. So fast forward now to April, when these student protesters learned that President Shafik is headed to Washington for her congressional testimony. It’s at this moment that they set out to build their encampment.

I think there was obviously a lot of intention in timing those two things. I think it’s inherently a critique on a political pressure and this congressional pressure that we saw build up against, of course, Claudine Gay at Harvard and Magill at UPenn. So I think a lot of students and faculty have been frustrated at this idea that there are not only powers at the University that are dictating what’s happening, but there are perhaps external powers that are also guiding the way here in terms of what the University feels like it must do or has to do.

And I think that timing was super crucial. Having the encampment happen on the Wednesday morning of the hearing was an incredible, in some senses, interesting strategy to direct eyes to different places.

All eyes were going to be on Shafik in DC. But now a lot of eyes are on New York. The encampment is set up in the middle of the night slash morning, prior to the hearing. And so what effectively happens is they caught Shafik when she wasn’t on campus, when a lot of senior administration had their resources dedicated to supporting Shafik in DC.

And you have all of those people not necessarily out of commission, but with their focus elsewhere. So the encampment is met with very little resistance at the beginning. There were public safety officers floating around and watching. But at the very beginning hours, I think there was a sense of, we did it.

[CHANTING]: Disclose! Divest! We will not stop! We will not rest. Disclose! Divest! We will not stop!

It would be quite surprising to anybody and an administrator to now suddenly see dozens of tents on this lawn in a way that I think very purposely puts an imagery of, we’re here to stay. As the morning evolved and congressional hearings continued —

Minouche Shafik, open your eyes! Use of force, genocide!

Then we started seeing University delegates that were coming to the encampment saying, you may face disciplinary action for continuing to be here. I think that started around almost — like 9:00 or 10:00 AM, they started handing out these code of conduct violation notices.

Hell no! Hell no! Hell no!

Then there started to be more public safety action and presence. So they started barricading the entrances. The day progressed, there was more threat of discipline. The students became informed that if they continue to stay, they will face potential academic sanctions, potential suspension.

The more they try to silence us, the louder we will be! The more they —

I think a lot of people were like, OK, you’re threatening us with suspension. But so what?

This is about these systems that Minouche Shafik, that the Board of Trustees, that Columbia University is complicit in.

What are you going to do to try to get us out of here? And that was, obviously, promptly answered.

This is the New York State Police Department.

We will not stop!

You are attempting participate in an unauthorized encampment. You will be arrested and charged with trespassing.

My phone blew up, obviously, from the reporters, from the editors, of saying, oh my god, the NYPD is on our campus. And as soon as I saw that, I came out. And I saw a huge crowd of students and affiliates on campus watching the lawns. And as I circled around that crowd, I saw the last end of the New York Police Department pulling away protesters and clearing out the last of the encampment.

[CHANTING]: We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you! We see you! We love you! We will get justice for you!

It was something truly unimaginable, over 100 students slash other individuals are arrested from our campus, forcefully removed. And although they were suspended, there was a feeling of traumatic event that has just happened to these students, but also this sense of like, OK, the worst of the worst that could have happened to us just happened.

And for those students who maybe couldn’t go back to — into campus, now all of their peers, who were supporters or are in solidarity, are — in some sense, it’s further emboldened. They’re now not just sitting on the lawns for a pro-Palestinian cause, but also for the students, who have endured quite a lot.

So the crackdown, sought by the president and enforced by the NYPD, ends up, you’re saying, becoming a galvanizing force for a broader group of Columbia students than were originally drawn to the idea of ever showing up on the center of campus and protesting?

Yeah, I can certainly speak to the fact that I’ve seen my own peers, friends, or even acquaintances, who weren’t necessarily previously very involved in activism and organizing efforts, suddenly finding themselves involved.

Can I — I just have a question for you, which is all journalism, student journalism or not student journalism, is a first draft of history. And I wonder if we think of this as a historic moment for Columbia, how you imagine it’s going to be remembered.

Yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that this will be a historic moment for Colombia.

I think that this will be remembered as a moment in which the fractures were laid bare. Really, we got to see some of the disunity of the community in ways that I have never really seen it before. And what we’ll be looking to is, where do we go from here? How does Colombia repair? How do we heal from all of this? so That is the big question in terms of what will happen.

Nick, Isabella Ramírez just walked us through what this has all looked like from the perspective of a Columbia student. And from what she could tell, the crackdown ordered by President Shafik did not quell much of anything. It seemed, instead, to really intensify everything on campus. I’m curious what this has looked like for Shafik.

It’s not just the students who are upset. You have faculty, including professors, who are not necessarily sympathetic to the protesters’ view of the war, who are really outraged about what Shafik has done here. They feel that she’s crossed a boundary that hasn’t been crossed on Columbia’s campus in a really long time.

And so you start to hear things by the end of last week like censure, no confidence votes, questions from her own professors about whether or not she can stay in power. So this creates a whole new front for her. And on top of it all, as this is going on, the encampment itself starts to reform tent-by-tent —

— almost in the same place that it was. And Shafik decides that the most important thing she could do is to try and take the temperature down, which means letting the encampment stand. Or in other words, leaning in the other direction. This time, we’re going to let the protesters have their say for a little while longer.

The problem with that is that, over the weekend, a series of images start to emerge from on campus and just off of it of some really troubling anti-Semitic episodes. In one case, a guy holds up a poster in the middle of campus and points it towards a group of Jewish students who are counter protesting. And it says, I’m paraphrasing here, Hamas’ next targets.

I saw an image of that. What it seemed to evoke was the message that Hamas should murder those Jewish students. That’s the way the Jewish students interpreted it.

It’s a pretty straightforward and jarring statement. At the same time, just outside of Columbia’s closed gates —

Stop killing children!

— protestors are showing up from across New York City. It’s hard to tell who’s affiliated with Columbia, who’s not.

Go back to Poland! Go back to Poland!

There’s a video that goes viral of one of them shouting at Jewish students, go back to Poland, go back to Europe.

In other words, a clear message, you’re not welcome here.

Right. In fact, go back to the places where the Holocaust was committed.

Exactly. And this is not representative of the vast majority of the protesters in the encampment, who mostly had been peaceful. They would later hold a Seder, actually, with some of the pro-Palestinian Jewish protesters in their ranks. But those videos are reaching members of Congress, the very same Republicans that Shafik had testified in front of just a few days before. And now they’re looking and saying, you have lost control of your campus, you’ve turned back on your word to us, and you need to resign.

They call for her outright resignation over this.

That’s right. Republicans in New York and across the country began to call for her to step down from her position as president of Columbia.

So Shafik’s dilemma here is pretty extraordinary. She has set up this dynamic where pleasing these members of Congress would probably mean calling in the NYPD all over again to sweep out this encampment, which would mean further alienating and inflaming students and faculty, who are still very upset over the first crackdown. And now both ends of this spectrum, lawmakers in Washington, folks on the Columbia campus, are saying she can’t lead the University over this situation before she’s even made any fateful decision about what to do with this second encampment. Not a good situation.

No. She’s besieged on all sides. For a while, the only thing that she can come up with to offer is for classes to go hybrid for the remainder of the semester.

So students who aren’t feeling safe in this protest environment don’t necessarily have to go to class.

Right. And I think if we zoom out for a second, it’s worth bearing in mind that she tried to choose a different path here than her counterparts at Harvard or Penn. And after all of this, she’s kind of ended up in the exact same thicket, with people calling for her job with the White House, the Mayor of New York City, and others. These are Democrats. Maybe not calling on her to resign quite yet, but saying, I don’t know what’s going on your campus. This does not look good.

That reality, that taking a different tack that was supposed to be full of learnings and lessons from the stumbles of her peers, the fact that didn’t really work suggests that there’s something really intractable going on here. And I wonder how you’re thinking about this intractable situation that’s now arrived on these college campuses.

Well, I don’t think it’s just limited to college campuses. We have seen intense feelings about this conflict play out in Hollywood. We’ve seen them in our politics in all kinds of interesting ways.

In our media.

We’ve seen it in the media. But college campuses, at least in their most idealized form, are something special. They’re a place where students get to go for four years to think in big ways about moral questions, and political questions, and ideas that help shape the world they’re going to spend the rest of their lives in.

And so when you have a question that feels as urgent as this war does for a lot of people, I think it reverberates in an incredibly intense way on those campuses. And there’s something like — I don’t know if it’s quite a contradiction of terms, but there’s a collision of different values at stake. So universities thrive on the ability of students to follow their minds and their voices where they go, to maybe even experiment a little bit and find those things.

But there are also communities that rely on people being able to trust each other and being able to carry out their classes and their academic endeavors as a collective so they can learn from one another. So in this case, that’s all getting scrambled. Students who feel strongly about the Palestinian cause feel like the point is disruption, that something so big, and immediate, and urgent is happening that they need to get in the faces of their professors, and their administrators, and their fellow students.

Right. And set up an encampment in the middle of campus, no matter what the rules say.

Right. And from the administration’s perspective, they say, well, yeah, you can say that and you can think that. And that’s an important process. But maybe there’s some bad apples in your ranks. Or though you may have good intentions, you’re saying things that you don’t realize the implications of. And they’re making this environment unsafe for others. Or they’re grinding our classes to a halt and we’re not able to function as a University.

So the only way we’re going to be able to move forward is if you will respect our rules and we’ll respect your point of view. The problem is that’s just not happening. Something is not connecting with those two points of view. And as if that’s not hard enough, you then have Congress and the political system with its own agenda coming in and putting its thumb on a scale of an already very difficult situation.

Right. And at this very moment, what we know is that the forces that you just outlined have created a dilemma, an uncertainty of how to proceed, not just for President Shafik and the students and faculty at Columbia, but for a growing number of colleges and universities across the country. And by that, I mean, this thing that seemed to start at Columbia is literally spreading.

Absolutely. We’re talking on a Wednesday afternoon. And these encampments have now started cropping up at universities from coast-to-coast, at Harvard and Yale, but also at University of California, at the University of Texas, at smaller campuses in between. And at each of these institutions, there’s presidents and deans, just like President Shafik at Columbia, who are facing a really difficult set of choices. Do they call in the police? The University of Texas in Austin this afternoon, we saw protesters physically clashing with police.

Do they hold back, like at Harvard, where there were dramatic videos of students literally running into Harvard yard with tents. They were popping up in real-time. And so Columbia, really, I think, at the end of the day, may have kicked off some of this. But they are now in league with a whole bunch of other universities that are struggling with the same set of questions. And it’s a set of questions that they’ve had since this war broke out.

And now these schools only have a week or two left of classes. But we don’t know when these standoffs are going to end. We don’t know if students are going to leave campus for the summer. We don’t know if they’re going to come back in the fall and start protesting right away, or if this year is going to turn out to have been an aberration that was a response to a really awful, bloody war, or if we’re at the beginning of a bigger shift on college campuses that will long outlast this war in the Middle East.

Well, Nick, thank you very much. Thanks for having me, Michael.

We’ll be right back.

Here’s what else you need to know today. The United Nations is calling for an independent investigation into two mass graves found after Israeli forces withdrew from hospitals in Gaza. Officials in Gaza said that some of the bodies found in the graves were Palestinians who had been handcuffed or shot in the head and accused Israel of killing and burying them. In response, Israel said that its soldiers had exhumed bodies in one of the graves as part of an effort to locate Israeli hostages.

And on Wednesday, Hamas released a video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an Israeli-American dual citizen, whom Hamas has held hostage since October 7. It was the first time that he has been shown alive since his captivity began. His kidnapping was the subject of a “Daily” episode in October that featured his mother, Rachel. In response to Hamas’s video, Rachel issued a video of her own, in which she spoke directly to her son.

And, Hersh, if you can hear this, we heard your voice today for the first time in 201 days. And if you can hear us, I am telling you, we are telling you, we love you. Stay strong. Survive.

Today’s episode was produced by Sydney Harper, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Olivia Natt, Nina Feldman, and Summer Thomad, with help from Michael Simon Johnson. It was edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow, contains research help by Susan Lee, original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nicholas Fandos

Produced by Sydney Harper ,  Asthaa Chaturvedi ,  Olivia Natt ,  Nina Feldman and Summer Thomad

With Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Chow

Original music by Marion Lozano and Dan Powell

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

Columbia University has become the epicenter of a growing showdown between student protesters, college administrators and Congress over the war in Gaza and the limits of free speech.

Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics and government for The Times, walks us through the intense week at the university. And Isabella Ramírez, the editor in chief of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, explains what it has all looked like to a student on campus.

On today’s episode

Nicholas Fandos , who covers New York politics and government for The New York Times

Isabella Ramírez , editor in chief of The Columbia Daily Spectator

Background reading

Inside the week that shook Columbia University .

The protests at the university continued after more than 100 arrests.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Research help by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Nicholas Fandos is a Times reporter covering New York politics and government. More about Nicholas Fandos

Advertisement

• Sign up For Free

LD and PF Club Team registration for the 2022-2023 debate season is now open!

• Join Our Newsletter

E:  [email protected]

• Schedule a Private Call

101: Introduction to LD

What is Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

How to win a LD Debate Round

How to Judge a LD Debate Round

LD Speech Format

First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)

Cross Examinations

First Negative Constructive (1NC)

First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)

Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

102: Beyond the Basics

Constructing a Case

Framework vs. Contentions

Mastering the Constructives

Mastering the Rebuttals

Final Speeches

The First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) is 4 minutes long. Since it has to cover the long 1NC, it is the hardest speech in the debate. The Aff has two jobs – rebuilding (“extending”) their case and attacking the Neg’s positions. The Aff will typically spend around 2 minutes on their case and 2 minutes on their opponent’s positions.

First, it should always think from the 2AR backwards. The debate is never won in the 1AR; what matters is delivering a killer 2AR. The 1AR, although the most important speech (by nature of how hard it is), does not win the debate – it just sets up the 2AR. As a result, every argument in the 1AR should be purposive – don’t just make arguments to make them. An argument needs to contribute to a winning 2AR (whether by being an argument you’ll directly go for in the 2AR or by being an argument that you won’t extend but that wastes the opponent’s time). Second, always think in terms of offense . While strictly positional 1ARs that try to get the debate back to the 1AC are a solid starting point, against a large 1NC it becomes challenging to avoid a 2NR collapse on the Neg’s terms. As a result, the 1AR should try to get offense and secure other possible 2ARs – new theory, an RVI, turning a disad, and others are all solid options. Third, think in terms of time-tradeoffs and make the debate smaller. If the 1AR tries to match the Neg minute-for-minute, the Aff will lose – the 1NC and 2NR are much longer than the 1AR. As a result, the Aff needs to make arguments that force the Neg to spend disproportionate amounts of time, such as a quick theory argument that, if missed, will cost the Neg the debate. If this happens, the 2AR can then collapse to something that the 2NR undercovered and win the debate as a result. Fourth, weighing arguments are key , establishing why one arguent is more important than another. As the above points emphasized, the 1AR is a time crunch. It will be challenging for the 1AR to cover everything adequately. However, weighing arguments are helpful for setting up a 2AR collapse; the 2AR can claim that an argument supersedes the other arguments the 2NR went for. Put differently, even if the Aff loses the majority of arguments, they can claim they’re winning the most important ones. Fifth, be strategic with how time is allocated . This is a case-by-case determination. In some situations, the Aff can spend as little as 30 seconds on the 1AC, while other situations may require half of the 1AR. A good general rule of thumb is to not spend more than 2 minutes on the 1AC, more than 45 seconds on a single procedural, and to try to spend no fewer than 20 seconds on any given offcase argument (unless it is truly a throwaway). Sixth, use analytics (arguments by the debater, as contrasted with carded evidence) strategically. While the 1AR can—and should—read lots of cards, sometimes the best arguments are those that pick up on logical gaps in the 1NC’s arguments. Analytics can pick up on those gaps and help tease them out.

Iowa Debate

Dale herbeck tribute.

Before arriving as a graduate student to Iowa in 1981, Dale Herbeck enjoyed a successful career debating at Augustana College, Illinois. He qualified for the NDT twice and reached the octo-finals during his senior year debating with John Bart. He was coached by the legendary, Ken Strange.

Dale enjoyed a remarkable career as a debate coach at Iowa from 1981 to 1985. He qualified teams to the NDT in 4 of those 5 years. In 1985, he coached Karla Leeper and Robert Garman to a first round at large bid and to a second place finish at the NDT.

Almost every day, Dale and I ate at the same restaurant in downtown Iowa City, The Burger Palace, which tragically, no longer exists. We both ordered the same meal and the servers would yell out our order before we reached the counter.

In the fall of 1985, Dale was hired as the Director of Debate at Boston College. He resurrected a floundering debate program. The program had been doing only individual events when he took over with a $9000.00 budget. Dale qualified teams to the NDT every year from 1987 to 1994. Michael Janas, another Iowa alumn, was the first of Dale’s team to qualify to the NDT.

Dale retired as the Director in 1994 and served as the Department Chair for many years. In 2012, he left BC and became the Department Chair at Northeastern.

Dale was a prolific scholar in the fields of argumentation and free speech. He served as the editor of Argumentation and Advocacy and the Free Speech Year Book.

His most lasting contribution to debate scholarship is that he invented the permutation, which remains the go to affirmative response to refute a negative counterplan.

Dale published dozens of peer-reviewed articles in the fields of free speech and communication Law. His textbook, Freedom of Speech in The United States, co-authored with Thomas Tedford, is the leading teaching material on free speech.

Along with being a scholar, Dale was an exceptional teacher. He received numerous teaching awards from Phi Betta Kappa and NCA.

Dale also provided incredible service to the AFA. He served as President, the Chair of the Finance Committee and wrote countless letters of support for debate coaches to receive tenure and promotion. Even after retiring from debate, Dale served on the NDT alumni committee and formatted our newsletter for the past 5 years.

Dale was my best friend. We attended 40 NCA conventions together, played golf on a regular basis, and attended numerous sporting events.

Next November, NCA will be having a panel to celebrate his remarkable career.

Best regards to everyone,

John Katsulas