Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley

Reply Speeches

www.monashdebaters.com | monash_debaters@hotmail.com

Basics
• 3-4 minute speech at the end of the
debate.
• Happen in reverse order (neg then aff).
• Delivered by either your 1st or 2nd
speaker.
• Summary of the debate and why your
team won.
• Reflective (past tense), sound objective.

Aim of replies
• Not like any other speech in a debate.
• About why your side won, not why your
side is right (subtle difference).
• Biased adjudication.
• Changes depending on the debate:
sometimes to win back a debate,
sometimes to hold the lead, sometimes
to minimise margin.

Cont.
• Refocus the debate/re-characterize the
clash and issues
• Add focus to the debate


Method
• ONLY HAVE 3-4 mins so structure is vital.
– Don’t give too much depth to arguments.
– Minimal intro
• Like anything, no right or wrong way, just less
good ways.
• Usually have 2 themes, questions or areas of
clash. (You will run out of time for 3)
• Don’t just reuse your 3rd speaker’s themes.


Matter
• Depends on the debate: See types of replies
• Usually use it to either
– Win back lost issues
– Increase importance of won issues
• Look for things that are clear fails from
opposition
– Contradictions/case shifts
– Lack of responses or missing analyis


Manner
• Very calm, very reflective.
• Remember, the debate is over, you are
just telling us why you are better than
them... Keep the claws away.
• Use past tense.
• Calm does not mean inaudible or boring


Neg Block
• The negative team gets 12 uninterrupted minutes...
– Negative teams should use this carefully.
• Don’t summarise in 3rd neg... It’s a waste.
• Smash key issues at 3rd, win things back, push
winning points harder, then reply them good.
– Affirmative teams should prepare for this.
• Summary in 3rd aff is really important now.
• Don’t respond to 3rd neg or neg reply, but be
cautious of what issues that have won back.


Yours or theirs?
• Focus on your case when:
– You are in the winning position
– When you had a strong positive case, but
weak rebuttal of opp (nothing you can do
about it now)
– When they had strong rebuttal and you
need to remind the judge what your case
looked like before it fell apart
– Usually when you are Aff

Cont.
• Focus on their case when:
– When your positive case was crap, or less
important
– When you had strong rebuttal and they
failed to rebuild/respond
– When the opposition made bad tactical
errors (were inconsistent, case
shifts/slides, liberal with concessions)
– Usually when you are Neg

Basic Reply
• Gives a clear summary of the debate
• Has two themes: principle and practical
• Works for most debates, but especially
when you feel you are winning
• These are a safe option
• You should all start here


Narrative Reply
• Takes you on a journey in the world
where the policy is implemented.
Chronological order: before (problem,
principles), during (practical stuff), after
(long-term benefits/harms)
• Best done from the Aff, where the focus
is your own case, and why you were
successful at proving it.

Cont.
• Most effective in model heavy debates, which
have become a messy fight about practicality
(implementation and outcomes)
• Good to reintroduce the bigger picture
discussion when the debates has been
focused on niggly issues


Narrow Reply
• Most replies attempt to cover whole
debate
• Sometimes it can be tactical to focus on
minor issues or smaller parts of the
debate


Cont.
• Should be used when: you feel your
team has won the biggest issue, and
you want to minimise the significance of
all other issues
• Or when your opposition has made a
key tactical error which you want to
exploit


Cont.
• You would usually employ when you
feel the debate is weighted against you,
or you feel you are losing in the reply.


Broad Replies
• Attempt to summarise the entire debate
• Usually becomes a list of arguments
you have won
• Score lots of hits on arguments you lost
• Should be used when you feel you have
won lots of minor issues, but perhaps
are losing the core issue


Things not to do
• Say “we won because...”
• Rebut or add New Material
• Get uppity
• Repeat 3rd speaker
• “they said, we said”
• Falsify arguments/responses
• Claim there was no response

Judging?
• You can award a debate based on reply
• It can certainly affect the margin
• You can use the range (Ave: 37.5,
Range: 34 – 41)
• Be skeptical, check for factual accuracy
• One place where judge can enter
debate – was the reply accurate?


Cont.
• Reply is a part of the case, it
contributes or detracts from overall
persuasiveness of the case
• A winning reply will change your
perception of the overall
persuasiveness of the case


Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley

Similar to Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley (20)

More from Monash Association of Debaters

More from Monash Association of Debaters (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley