Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views12 pages

Third Speaker Speech Structure (Detailed Explanation)

The document outlines the structure and strategy for a third speaker in a debate, emphasizing the importance of rebutting the opposition's case and reinforcing one's own team's arguments. It provides a detailed framework for organizing the speech, including sections for introduction, key issues, rebuttal techniques, and conclusion. The document also includes examples and guidance on how to effectively present arguments and counterarguments to sway the judges in favor of one's team.

Uploaded by

ooflesha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
16 views12 pages

Third Speaker Speech Structure (Detailed Explanation)

The document outlines the structure and strategy for a third speaker in a debate, emphasizing the importance of rebutting the opposition's case and reinforcing one's own team's arguments. It provides a detailed framework for organizing the speech, including sections for introduction, key issues, rebuttal techniques, and conclusion. The document also includes examples and guidance on how to effectively present arguments and counterarguments to sway the judges in favor of one's team.

Uploaded by

ooflesha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

Third Speaker Speech Structure (Detailed Explanation)

As the third speaker, your primary role is to rebut the opposition’s case, reinforce your
team’s arguments, and frame the debate in your favor. Below is a structured approach to
how your speech should be formed, with a detailed breakdown of each step.

Third Speaker Speech Structure


This follows the format you provided.

Introduction

The introduction sets the tone for your speech and helps establish control over the debate. It
should:

●​ Acknowledge the key themes that have emerged in the debate.


●​ Reinforce your team’s stance and strategy.
●​ Provide a roadmap for your speech.

Example Introduction:

"Ladies and gentlemen, throughout today’s debate, we have seen a clear divide between
two competing worlds. On one hand, we have demonstrated that [your team’s core
argument], while the opposition has failed to address [major weaknesses in their case].
Today, I will do three things: First, I will clarify the main issues in this debate and explain why
they matter. Second, I will expose the fundamental flaws in the opposition’s case. Finally, I
will show why our side presents the most logical and beneficial outcome for the most
vulnerable members of society."

Key Issues (Framing the Debate)


You should identify three key issues that summarize the major points of contention
between the two teams. These are broad themes under which you can group the debate.
Each issue should follow this structure:

1.​ Framing the Issue:​

○​ Explain why this issue is central to the debate.


○​ Define the core question that needs to be answered.
2.​ Analysis (Breaking It Down):​

○​ Explain your team’s stance on the issue.


○​ Provide logical reasoning, data, and examples to support your argument.
3.​ Comparative Work (Why Your Side Wins):​

○​ Compare how both teams have addressed the issue.


○​ Show why your team’s approach is stronger.
4.​ Impact (Why This Matters):​

○​ Explain the real-world consequences of winning this issue.


○​ Emphasize how it affects people, policies, or principles.

Issue 1: [Name the Issue]


Framing

●​ Introduce the issue and why it is a fundamental point of contention.


●​ Set up a question that needs answering.

Example: "The first key issue in this debate is whether government regulation of AI should
be stricter. The question we must answer is: does stricter regulation protect the public
without stifling innovation?"

Analysis

●​ Explain your team’s stance.


●​ Provide logical reasoning, real-world examples, and expert opinions.

Example: "Our team has argued that regulation is necessary to prevent unethical AI
practices and job displacement. We’ve cited examples like biased hiring algorithms and
AI-driven misinformation campaigns."

Comparative Work

●​ Compare your argument with the opposition’s stance and show how theirs is flawed.

Example: "The opposition, however, has argued that excessive regulation would hinder
innovation. But they fail to recognize that unregulated AI already causes harm, as seen in
facial recognition surveillance abuses. Our approach finds a balance between safety and
innovation."

Impact

●​ Explain why winning this issue helps you win the debate.

Example: "Ultimately, if we do not regulate AI now, we risk irreversible consequences,


including mass unemployment and privacy violations. That is why this issue must go to our
side."
Issue 2: [Name the Issue]
(Repeat the same format as Issue 1)

Issue 3: [Name the Issue]


(Repeat the same format as Issue 1)

Clarifications & Strategic Flaws in the Opposition’s


Case
Here, you directly target the weaknesses in the opposition’s case. This is where deep
rebuttal happens. You should address:

●​ Logical inconsistencies – Did they contradict themselves?


●​ Factual inaccuracies – Did they misrepresent evidence?
●​ Lack of real-world application – Did they fail to prove real impact?
●​ Failure to address your case – Did they ignore key arguments?

Example:

"Now, let’s examine the fundamental flaws in the opposition’s case. First, they claimed that
economic growth is more important than environmental protection. However, this contradicts
their later argument that climate disasters harm economies. Which is it? Their case lacks
internal consistency."

"Second, they suggested that banning single-use plastics would harm small businesses. Yet,
countries like France and Canada have successfully implemented such bans with minimal
economic disruption. Their argument lacks empirical support."

Comparative of the Two Worlds


Here, you summarize how the debate plays out under your team’s model versus the
opposition’s.

●​ Highlight key advantages of your side


●​ Expose the risks of their model
●​ Show that your team has created a more consistent, logical, and beneficial
case
Example:

"Under our model, we see a world where businesses innovate to create sustainable
alternatives, reducing plastic waste without harming the economy. Under the opposition’s
world, plastic pollution continues unchecked, leading to long-term environmental and
economic crises. The choice is clear."

Impact on the Most Vulnerable Actor


This is your final opportunity to show how the most vulnerable group (e.g., minorities, the
poor, developing nations) benefits under your team’s model. Judges often weigh arguments
based on who suffers the most under a given policy.

Example:

"At the heart of this debate are the most vulnerable actors—the communities most affected
by climate change. Our side has provided clear solutions to protect them, while the
opposition’s stance ignores their plight. This debate is not just theoretical—it has real
consequences for real people."

How to Structure Rebuttal (Deep Dive into Techniques)


Rebuttal is your attack on the opposition’s arguments. The World Schools Debating guide
provides key grounds for rebuttal:

1.​ Logical Irrelevance – Does their argument actually support their case?
2.​ Insignificance – Even if their argument is true, does it matter?
3.​ Factual Inaccuracy – Are they using incorrect or misleading evidence?
4.​ Unsubstantiated Assertions – Have they failed to provide proof?
5.​ Underlying Assumptions – Are they assuming something that isn’t necessarily
true?
6.​ Causation vs. Correlation – Are they confusing correlation with causation?
7.​ Contradictions – Are they internally inconsistent?
8.​ Misrepresentation – Have they distorted your team’s argument?

How to Construct a Rebuttal Point (Step-by-Step)

1.​ Identify the Opposition’s Argument​

○​ "The opposition argued that raising the minimum wage will increase
unemployment."
2.​ State Why It Is Flawed​
○​ "However, this argument is based on the outdated assumption that
businesses will always cut jobs rather than adapt."
3.​ Provide Counter-Evidence & Alternative Explanation​

○​ "Studies from the U.S. and U.K. show that moderate wage increases lead to
higher productivity and spending, offsetting job losses."
4.​ Compare & Show Why Your Side Is Stronger​

○​ "Unlike their fear-mongering approach, our side acknowledges economic


realities and presents a balanced policy that benefits both workers and
businesses."

Conclusion
Your last 30 seconds should be powerful and memorable.

●​ Reiterate your team’s victory on key issues.


●​ Emphasize the real-world impact of your case.
●​ End with a strong, confident statement.

Example:

"For all these reasons, it is clear that our team has won this debate. We have shown that our
model is the most logical, practical, and beneficial solution. The opposition has failed to
counter our key arguments, and their case collapses under scrutiny. The choice is
clear—vote for our side. Thank you."

🚀
This structure ensures that your third speaker speech is detailed, logical, and devastatingly
effective. Let me know if you want refinements!
EXAMPLE
Third Speaker Speech - Proposition (Government) Side

Motion: "This House Would Make High Schools’ Starting Time Later."​
Time: 7 minutes

Introduction (0:00 - 1:00)​


"Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, today’s debate boils down to a simple but crucial
question: should we prioritize the well-being and academic success of students, or should
we cling to outdated schedules that set them up for failure? Our side has shown, through
science and logic, that later school start times improve mental health, academic
performance, and overall student well-being. Meanwhile, the opposition has relied on
fear-mongering and logistical excuses, rather than genuine engagement with our case."

"In this speech, I will do three things: First, I will clarify the main issues in today’s debate.
Second, I will dismantle the opposition’s case, exposing the flaws in their logic. Finally, I will
demonstrate why our model creates the best outcomes, particularly for the most vulnerable
students."

Key Issues

Issue 1: Academic Performance and Mental Health (1:00 - 3:00)

Framing:​
"The first and most fundamental issue in this debate is student success. The opposition
wants you to believe that waking up at the crack of dawn is some sort of character-building
exercise. But the reality is simple: teenagers need sleep, and forcing them into a rigid
schedule that contradicts their biological clock is setting them up for failure."

Analysis:​
"We’ve provided extensive scientific evidence that later school start times lead to improved
cognitive function, memory retention, and concentration. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends an 8:30 AM or later start time because adolescent brains are wired
to sleep later and wake later. More sleep means better focus, better grades, and ultimately,
better futures."

"On the flip side, sleep deprivation leads to increased stress, anxiety, and even depression.
The opposition has failed to challenge this, nor have they provided any counter-evidence to
suggest that early start times are actually beneficial to students."

Comparative Work:​
"The opposition argues that students should just ‘go to bed earlier.’ But this completely
ignores scientific reality. Adolescents experience a biological shift in their circadian rhythms
during puberty, making it difficult for them to fall asleep before 11 PM. Telling teenagers to
just ‘sleep earlier’ is about as effective as telling them to ‘just stop being tired.’"

Impact:​
"The opposition’s world keeps students exhausted and struggling to keep up. Our world
gives them the rest they need to succeed. And if we care about academic achievement, this
issue alone is enough to affirm today’s motion."

(POI from Opposition: “But won’t later start times just push everything back, meaning
students still go to bed late?”)​
"That’s an interesting concern, but completely unfounded. Studies show that when school
starts later, students actually do sleep longer, rather than just staying up later. This is
because their natural sleep cycles align better with their schedules. The idea that they’ll
simply waste the extra time is speculation, not science."

Issue 2: Logistical Concerns and Feasibility (3:00 - 5:00)

Framing:​
"The second major issue in this debate is feasibility. The opposition wants you to believe that
shifting school start times is some kind of bureaucratic nightmare. Let’s take a step back and
ask: is this really as difficult as they claim?"

Analysis:​
"First, they argue that later start times will create conflicts with bus schedules. But this
assumes that school systems cannot adapt—a claim that is simply false. Many districts in
the U.S. and globally have successfully shifted their schedules with minor adjustments to
transportation. It’s an inconvenience, not an impossibility."

"Second, they claim that parents will struggle to drop their kids off. But again, this ignores
reality. Most working parents already leave home before school starts, meaning many
students are left to commute on their own anyway. If anything, a later start time means more
students can commute when it's safer and brighter outside."

Comparative Work:​
"The opposition’s argument assumes that minor logistical hurdles are more important than
the well-being of millions of students. But even if we accept that some adjustments are
needed, they are clearly outweighed by the benefits. The question is: do we value
convenience over students’ health and success?"

Impact:​
"In the opposition’s world, we reject progress because it’s inconvenient. In our world, we
acknowledge that short-term adjustments lead to long-term benefits. If progress required
zero effort, we’d all still be using typewriters."

Issue 3: The Real-World Impact on Students (5:00 - 6:30)


Framing:​
"Finally, let’s talk about who is most affected by this debate: the students who struggle the
most."

Analysis:​
"Low-income students, who often work evening jobs, suffer disproportionately under early
start times. They go to bed late because they have to work, take care of siblings, or deal with
unstable home environments—then they wake up exhausted and fall behind academically.
By shifting school start times, we give these students a fighting chance."

Comparative Work:​
"The opposition offers no solution for these students. They pretend that enforcing early
mornings will magically make students more disciplined, but in reality, it just makes life
harder for those already struggling."

Impact:​
"If we care about equity in education, if we believe every student deserves a fair shot, then
we must support later start times. It is not just a policy shift—it’s a step toward a more just
and effective education system."

(POI from Opposition: “Isn’t it unfair to disrupt working parents' schedules for the
sake of students?”)​
"Let’s be clear: schools exist to serve students, not the other way around. If we shape
education around adult convenience rather than student success, then we’ve lost sight of our
priorities. Besides, parents benefit too—fewer morning battles over waking up, fewer truancy
issues, and better long-term success for their children."

Conclusion (6:30 - 7:00)

"At the end of the day, this debate isn’t about minor inconveniences—it’s about setting
students up for success. The opposition has failed to disprove the overwhelming scientific
evidence that later start times improve academic performance and mental health. They have
exaggerated logistical concerns while ignoring the broader benefits. And most importantly,
they have shown no regard for the students who need this change the most."

"In the real world, districts that have made this shift have seen higher test scores, better
attendance, and healthier students. Our model is based on data, logic, and compassion. The
opposition’s model is based on outdated traditions and a resistance to change. For all these
reasons, this house must move to make high school start times later. Thank you."

Why This Speech Works:

✅ Clear structure (Intro, Key Issues, Strategic Rebuttals, Conclusion)​


✅ Rebuttal integrated within main arguments​
✅ Professional yet engaging tone​
✅ Strong comparative analysis​
✅ Well-handled POIs (Takes 2, dismisses them effectively)​
✅ Compelling conclusion
Third Speaker Speech – Opposition (Opposition Side)

Motion: "This House Would Make High Schools’ Starting Time Later."​
Time: 7 minutes

Introduction (0:00 - 1:00)


"Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, we’ve heard a lot today about how teenagers are
sleep-deprived zombies, incapable of functioning before 8:30 AM. The proposition wants you
to believe that the only solution is to turn the entire education system upside down to
accommodate their snooze button. But here’s the real question: is changing school start
times actually the best way to solve these issues, or is it just an expensive, disruptive, and
ultimately ineffective band-aid solution?"

"In this speech, I will do three things: First, I will identify the core issues in this debate.
Second, I will expose the major flaws in the proposition’s case. And finally, I will demonstrate
why our side provides a far more practical and effective approach to improving student
well-being."

Key Issues
Issue 1: Sleep and Academic Performance – A Flawed Solution (1:00 -
3:00)

Framing:​
"Let’s start with the biggest claim from the proposition: that later start times will magically
solve sleep deprivation and boost academic performance. If only life were that simple!"

Analysis:​
"The reality is that sleep deprivation isn’t caused by early school start times—it’s caused by
poor sleep habits, overuse of technology, and a lack of personal discipline. The National
Sleep Foundation reports that over 70% of teens use electronic devices late at night,
suppressing their melatonin levels and delaying sleep onset. Changing school start
times does nothing to address this root cause."

"The proposition assumes that students will use extra morning time to sleep, but as studies
from South Korea and Japan show, students simply shift their schedules later. They stay
up longer because they know they have more time in the morning, leading to the same sleep
deprivation they started with!"
Comparative Work:​
"In our world, we teach students better sleep hygiene—reducing screen time before bed,
managing homework loads, and promoting healthier routines. In the proposition’s world, they
shift the clock but fix nothing, leaving students just as tired but with a disrupted system."

Impact:​
"If we really care about student well-being, we should tackle the cause, not just tweak the
symptom. The proposition’s solution is like treating a broken leg with a Band-Aid—it looks
like you’re fixing something, but you’re really not."

(POI from Proposition: “But isn’t it better to at least give students a chance to get
more sleep?”)​
"A chance? Sure. A solution? Absolutely not. Giving students later start times without
addressing why they don’t sleep enough is like giving someone a gym membership and
expecting them to get fit just by having it. It’s not the school schedule—it’s the choices
outside of school that matter most."

Issue 2: Logistical Chaos (3:00 - 5:00)

Framing:​
"Next, let’s talk about the logistical nightmare the proposition conveniently brushed aside.
Changing school start times doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it creates ripple effects across
entire communities."

Analysis:​
"First, transportation. Many schools operate in staggered bus schedules with elementary,
middle, and high school students using the same buses. If we shift high school start times,
we either increase transportation costs significantly or disrupt younger students’
schedules. Either way, it’s inefficient and expensive."

"Second, working parents. The proposition assumes parents have the flexibility to adjust, but
most working parents start their jobs early. A later school start means many students will
be left unsupervised in the mornings, increasing safety concerns, particularly for younger
siblings they may have to care for."

Comparative Work:​
"In our world, schools run efficiently, parents maintain stable schedules, and students adapt
to existing structures. In their world, families struggle with chaotic mornings, schools face
transportation crises, and all for what? The hope that teenagers will suddenly decide to sleep
responsibly?"

Impact:​
"The proposition’s plan causes more harm than good. If we have to choose between minor
student fatigue and major system-wide disruption, the choice is obvious—we stick with
what works."
(POI from Proposition: “Aren’t these logistical concerns worth solving if students’
health is at stake?”)​
"We’re all for solving problems—just not with bad solutions. If student health is the concern,
let’s address the real issues: later assignments, better sleep education, and healthier
lifestyles. Changing start times just shifts problems elsewhere without fixing anything."

Issue 3: Preparing Students for the Real World (5:00 - 6:30)

Framing:​
"Finally, let’s talk about an argument that the proposition completely ignored: the role of
education in preparing students for real life."

Analysis:​
"In the real world, jobs don’t start at 10 AM. Universities don’t cater to your sleep schedule.
The workplace expects people to be up and functional early in the morning. School should
be about more than just academics—it should also teach students discipline, time
management, and resilience."

"The proposition’s plan fosters bad habits, making students believe that the world will bend
to their sleep preferences. This is the same generation that spends hours binge-watching
Netflix and scrolling TikTok until 2 AM—do we really think making school start later will fix
their habits?"

Comparative Work:​
"In our world, students learn responsibility—they develop strong time management skills
that prepare them for adulthood. In their world, students grow up with the expectation that
schedules should cater to them, leading to poor work ethics and unrealistic
expectations."

Impact:​
"If we truly want students to succeed in life beyond high school, we need to teach them to
function in an early-start world, not shield them from it."

Conclusion (6:30 - 7:00)

"At the end of this debate, the choice is clear. The proposition has given you an idealistic,
feel-good proposal with no real impact. They assume that teenagers will actually use extra
morning time for sleep when evidence suggests otherwise. They dismiss the massive
logistical disruptions this policy would cause. And worst of all, they ignore the fact that
schools should be preparing students for real-world expectations, not shielding them from
them."

"Meanwhile, we on the opposition have provided real solutions: promoting better sleep
habits, improving time management, and maintaining a school system that works for
students, parents, and communities alike. We don’t just present a convenient solution—we
present the right solution."

"For these reasons, we strongly oppose today’s motion. Thank you."

Why This Speech Works:

✅ Clear structure (Intro, Key Issues, Strategic Rebuttals, Conclusion)​


✅ Powerful rebuttals that dismantle the proposition’s case​
✅ Sharp comparative work that shows why the opposition’s world is better​
✅ Logical, articulate, and professional delivery​
✅ Handles POIs well (Takes 2, dismantles them effectively)​
✅ Compelling conclusion that ties everything together

You might also like