Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley

www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]

Reply Speeches


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

Technology

Introduction to Replies by Gemma Buckley