debate speech example second speaker

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.

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 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Debate 101: 2nd Speaker

The second speaker’s job is simple: respond to the previous speakers’ arguments and extend the debate.

• Post author By Jen Taruno
• Post date June 24, 2021
• No Comments on Debate 101: 2nd Speaker

The second speaker’s job is simple: respond to the previous speakers’ arguments and extend the debate. While first speakers have an entire grocery list to check off for their speeches, second speakers enjoy the simple structure of Responses and Extensions.

Second speakers are also known as Deputies. Because when you’re on Government, you’re a Deputy Prime Minister (DPM), and when you’re on Opposition, you’re Deputy Leader of Opposition (DLO). Let’s talk about the duties of these deputies.

(first 4-5 minutes of your speech in a 7-minute format, first 5-6 minutes of your speech in an 8-minute format)

You’re speaking midway into the debate and the speakers before you have brought a lot of material, so second speakers normally spend this much time making rebuttals! If you’re DPM, respond to all of your LO’s materials. If you’re DLO, respond mainly to DPM, but attack PM’s arguments too if you need to cover up for missing response in LO (which is common because LO is expected to bring a lot of material).

Click here to learn how to make responses in detail.

(the rest of your speech)

Sometimes, second speakers are forgiven for only bringing rebuttals, as long as they’re not material from the first speaker repeated in a different way. This is something to do for a last resort, because normally, the second speaker is expected to bring substantive material. The reason it’s called an extension in second is because it’s an extended impact from the motion that’s less obvious than those brought in first.

Overall, the way you can think of an extension is by looking for an argument that has either of these things:

• A different actor
• A different impact
• A different scenario
• A different argument type (principle/practical)

More of the goodies is in this article about extensions.

What do I do during casebuild?

• Help the first speaker make their case first! It’s top priority because you’re speaking later and will have more time to think.
• Think of an extension after the first speaker has a setup and knows what arguments they’re going to bring. If you’re stuck, ask your teammates to help you.
• Throughout the whole casebuilding process, think of what the opposition team might bring and have pre-emptions ready, so you can just put them in your responses later.

That’s all for second speakers! Does this look like the kind of speaker you’d most like to become? Or have you learned new things about second speakers? Well, if you’re still curious, there’s actually more about this here—we’ve got details on how to respond effectively and types of extensions as well.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

How to Write a Debate Speech in English | Format, and Examples

Every student has to write a debate at some point in school, college, or university and if you don’t know about the methods and steps to write a debate speech, you won’t write an effective debate speech to increase your chance of success. Following a proper structure and format in debate writing is essential for a good debate to convenience the audience. There are some tips and methods to write an effective debate speech and by setting a tone and correct words choice and sentences, you can grab the judge’s and the audience’s attention. So, are you searching for pro tips on how to write a debate speech in English? Let’s dive into this article and get complete knowledge about debate writing.

Before diving into the steps of debate writing, it’s necessary to understand debate speech definition and debate speech format.

Debate Speech Definition

A debate speech is a formal discussion on a specific topic between two opposing sides or groups. One side discusses in a favor of the given topic or title, while the other side speaks against it or disagrees with the first side. The main purpose of a debate speech is to convince the judges and audience that your opinion is right. In debate speech, you need to express your views in a specific format and make your opponents impress by good debate writing skills.

Debate Speech Format

You can follow the following pattern for a debate speech.

Opening Statements and Explanation

This section consists of the opening sentences by using three arguments with explaining questions.

• Pro Tema – Up to 5 minutes
• Con Team – Up to 2 minutes
• Con Team – Up to 5 minutes
• Pro Team – Up to 2 minutes

Rebuttals (No new Arguments Here)

In this section, the debaters repeat the deponent arguments and evaluate what is wrong with his/her position.

• Pro Team – Up to 3 minutes
• Con Team – Up to 3 minutes

Debate Summary

In the summary, debates summarize their positions after detailed arguments and discussions with the opponents. In addition, the debaters also say why their position is the best.

Finally, each group will be assumed to answer the questions up to 20 minutes long session. For instance, you can look at the following debate speech template to get an idea of the debate speech structure.

Debate Speech Format PDF

How to Write a Debate (6 Steps)

Structuring and writing your debate correctly will increase your chance of success. By following the 6 easy steps below will help you win the debate competition. Without further ado let’s dive into the following steps.

• Begin With a Strong Opening Lines
• Define the Topic
• Signposting

Step #1: Begin With a Strong Opening Lines

Every good speech and discussion starts with a strong sentence. Remember the first impression is the last impression, hence start your debate with a strong opening line that can help you impress the audience and the judge immediately. For example, you can start your debate by asking an open-ended question, tell a story, state an amazing fact or say a powerful quotation.

Step #2: Define the Topic

When you started your debate with a strong sentence and catch the audience’s attention, in the next step you need to make the subject clear to your listeners. You need to state the topic and your group’s position on the topic to help the audience comprehend the side you are going to argue about.

For Example:

“Ladies and gentlemen, today I would like to talk to you about the education system. The education system that we have followed in our country has been reformed many times. Computer literacy at the age of 13 can help in the child’s future studies. Here, I will argue that the problem is the pandemic, besides being stressful, are indecisive in assessing student learning.”

Step #3: Signposting

Signposting may seem irritating and avoidable. If you are word-addict it can even seem like it’s confusing the flow of your otherwise clear and lyrical speech. However, it’s totally important in the format of a good debate speech. You might think that you write a good debate speech, but remember the audience isn’t you to judge. They don’t how much idea about the topic as you have and they might get bored for a few moments in your introduction and then get completely lost. This is why signposting is necessary for debate.

This is a good way to remind your audience of what you are discussing and where you are up to in your speech. Hence, after your introduction add a few points that tell the audience that how many points you are going to deliver and in what order you are delivering them.

Also Read : Essential Transition Words and Phrases for Writing

Step #4: Rebuttal

Have you heard that sometimes the best offense is a good defense? In a professional debate, the most compelling part is usually when one side takes one of the arguments of the opponent and then cuts it to pieces. Indeed, it’s the most difficult part of any debate speech to finish correctly. In a debate speech Rebutting arguments forces you to think thoroughly on the spot. You have a little time like 30 to 40 seconds to take arguments that your opponent has spent a lot of time researching and edging and convincingly oppose it.

There are some approaches that you can use while rebutting in a debate speech and make the challenge a little less dismay. These include the following:

• Pre-research thoroughly
• What’s the point
• Economic Challanges
• Say your own arguments

Step #5: Arguments

The argument is the most significant part of a debate speech. To make it clear for you, we have divided this down into four simple subtopics.

1. Decide what to argue:

If you have researched the topics and have good information, then a lot of arguments will come to your mind. It always requires good research to come up with talking points. Consider the issue. You can research online, read books and novels for good ideas. When you have good knowledge of the topic then the right arguments will come to your mind no matter how strong your position is.

2. The Layout :

Writing an argument is the same as writing a body paragraph for an essay. You can start each argument by signposting for instance, “Initially, I want to argue….” and then follow up with a sentence shortly. After this, you need to talk in detail about the topic by giving some facts and statics to constitute what you are saying, and then at the end link neatly back to the title of the debate to make clear to the audience that you are not only giving a passionate rant but instead making a carefully calculated point that related in with a general thesis statement.

3. Find Evidence:

Embedding the right evidence into your debate speech makes you more conceivable, but using the wrong and irrelevant evidence from a wrong source leaves you vulnerable to be attacked by the opposition. Hence, it’s necessary to search beforehand and find the right evidence.

4. Persuasive Strategies:

Remember you can be as persuasive and colorful in debate as you write a persuasive piece. Don’t use harsh words or insult your opponents and don’t use the sense of humor where it’s not important, but other than the obvious limitation you can use as many persuasive strategies as you can.

Step #6: How to Conclude

The conclusion is the result of your writing and is one of the most important parts of a debate speech. It should sum the points you have written in the whole parts of your writing, and by delivering the conclusion of your debate the listeners or readers should feel as if they have gained the result of whatever you have written in the body.

Writing a conclusion for a debate speech is the same as writing a conclusion for an essay. In the link below you can read more about how to conclude a debate.

• How to Write the Best Concluding Paragraph

Debate Speech Sample in English

Download PDF

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Related posts

Composition writing, techniques that won’t help you learn english , how to write a literature review in 5 easy steps, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Structure of a Debate Speech

Debate Speeches have 3 major parts: Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Introduction  - The key is to make it clear what your case is

1. Preamble (optional) – A short (30 seconds max) story or statistic that frames  (i.e. gives the audience a certain mindset when thinking about) the resolution 

2A. If and only if you are the 1st Prop/PM - Define the resolution. You must define all of the terms and then paraphrase your definition. The definition should be clear and may not be unreasonable or a truism.

2B. If not PM – Briefly paraphrase the government definition but use exact quotes if, and only if, one of the terms is crucial to your argument. If the Opposition is going to challenge the definition — and it is usually a bad idea to do so unless it is undebatable — it must do so here and it can only do so if the 1st Opposition can show that the government definition is unreasonable or a truism. In that case the 1st Opposition redefines it and then argues against the redefined resolution.

3. Framing – Discuss the fundamental question in the debate, generalizing it if appropriate. The fundamental question is often of the form “How do we decide if …”  or  “ What is the basis for deciding if …“ Explain what the issues are and, if appropriate, what are not issues. Explain what is the debate about. Do not just state that you are going to argue in favour and they are going to argue against. As the opposition you may not want to accept the proposition/government’s framing of the debate, in which case you must put forward your own and explain why it is better.

Body  (RDA (Refute, Defend, Add))

1- Refutation (except for PM’s first speech) – This is usually done before presenting your constructive case but can be done after it. Go over all of your opponents’ reasons one by one (number them) and refute each one. If you are the 2nd opposition, attack both the 1st Prop points (if you have time and if any are still standing after your partner’s speech) and the 2nd Prop's points. The way to attack their reasons is to show that they are irrelevant or insufficient (i.e. even if true, they are not significant enough to prove the resolution) or questionable (i.e. they are not true or are unproven) or that they are outweighed by other factors. You can the SEER format, i.e. S tate their reason, E xplain why it is wrong. give E vidence/Example to illustrate it, and R eturn to the resolution as defined – show that they haven not proven what they must prove ) 

2- Constructive Case

A) Allocation – If you are the first speaker on your side, explain how you are going to divide the case between yourself and your partner. It is best to see if there is a way to divide the case into two general areas, e.g. practical and principle, cost and safety, individual and society, long term and short term.

B) Have two to three reasons backed by detailed evidence or examples. If you are the second speaker on your side, go over your partner’s points before getting to your own; DO NOT just state them but defend them and expand them or point out that the other side has not dealt with them, and then go on to your point(s). You can use the ARE format ( A ssertion - state your reason, R easoning - explain why your reason is true and why that matters for the resolution, and E vidence/Example - provide evidence and /or examples to illustrate your reason. Your side should have no more than four reasons and your partner should have at least one of those four. Number your reasons.

Conclude your speech with a summary of what your side (include your partner’s points if, and only if, they have already spoken) has said. If you have time, try to summarize each of your reasons as a single sentence or clause. You may want to then end by emphasizing your strongest point, challenging the opposition, or using a quote or memorable phrase

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

GIRLS WHO DEBATE

Overview of the second speech: parliamentary.

This article serves as an introduction for the role of the Second Speaker in Parliamentary debate, including some basic tips, tricks and timing.

The second speaker in Parliamentary debate is usually one of the most important speeches. In this speech, you have to cover all of the content necessary for your team to win the round because the final speaker (third speaker) can not bring up any new information in their speech. This means that by the end of your second speech, you need to respond to the entirety of the opposing case while establishing all of the logistics and information of your own case.

The most challenging aspect of the second speech is typically organization. Speakers tend to speak freely and without structure, which confuses judges and makes it challenging for them to flow through your analysis. We are going to cover a couple of different ways that you can organize the second speech:

The Line-by-line Speech

This speech is formulated by simply running through the opposing case and methodically refuting their advantages. Once you finish refuting their advantages, establish and counter-refute your own advantages. You can finish the speech by analyzing the round with impact calculus. You should break down your speech like the following:

0:00-0:15 Introduction and hook

0:15-1:30 Framing disputes and assumptions by the opposing team

1:30-3:00 Refute first opposing advantage

3:00-4:30 Refute second opposing advantage

4:30-6:00 Refute third opposing advantage

6:00-7:00 Counter-refute and establish own case

7:00-8:00 Impact calculus

This structure is evidently dependent on the case presented by your opponents. So, if they only present two advantages, you can take more time to individually refute those, or you can add on extra time to counter-refutations or impact calculus - the structure of the speech is ultimately up to you. The most important aspect of this structure is consistent “signposting,” or letting the judge know which part of the flow you are analyzing. For example, when you finish responding to the second advantage and begin to refute the third advantage, you should let the judge know that you “will now respond to the third advantage proposed by the affirmative team.” Frequently signposting is crucial to a successful line-by-line speech.

The Clash Speech

The clash outline for a second speech is meant for experienced debaters. Once you gain comfort with the line-by-line format, consider trying the clash speech. In this format, you will identify 2-3 clash points that summarize the major disputes of the round. For each specific clash point, describe the opposing outlook on the clash and refute why their perspective should not flow through. Then, impact out why your comparative under that clash is preferable for the judge. Here is a timing breakdown:

0:15-1:00 Framing disputes and assumptions by the opposing team

1:00-3:00 First clash point

3:00-5:00 Second clash point

5:00-7:00 Third clash point

In order to be successful in this format, there are two aspects to remember. First, that when describing the opposing argument under a clash point, make sure you are correctly and accurately depicting the argument. This means that you avoid the “straw man fallacy” or purposely misconstruing an opposing argument to enable your refutations. If you commit this fallacy, your refutations will seem less valid to the judge, and your opponents will likely comment on this fallacy, making your refutations appear irrelevant. So, when you describe an opposing argument within this format, portray it in an accurate way. Secondly, ensure that the clash points you select are relevant to the round. In other words, don’t equate a source or statistic dispute to an entire clash point - this will give an undue amount of weight to an unimportant dispute, taking away time and focus on your own case.

By using these clear structures to format the speech, giving a second speech is easy and simple.

For more information on the content discussed in this article, please visit our Parliamentary Resource page.

• Parliamentary Debate

Related Posts

Parliamentary Debate: The Complete Guide

Overview of the First Speech: Parliamentary

Overview of the Third Speech: Parliamentary

Second Speaker

World Schools Format

• 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
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Communication Skills
• Public Speaking

How to Write a Speech if You're Third Speaker

Last Updated: September 3, 2023 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. 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 299,920 times.

There are three key roles on a debate team: first speaker, second speaker and third speaker. While the first and second speakers concentrate on building a substantive case, the third speaker has a unique job in that he or she must use their time to attack their opponent's case. This guide will help you create an outline for your argument if you are the third speaker on your debate team.

Before the Debate

• Make a list of the main arguments of first and second speakers on your team. Use the notes to rebut arguments of the opposing side.
• Throughout the debate, note down key clashes and the main arguments of the opposing side. [1] X Research source
• State the clashes and explain/analyze why your side has won in each clash.

Third Speaker Proposition

Third Speaker Opposition

• It is important to note that if you are a third speaker on an opposing team, you are not creating a constructive argument. Presenting a new argument at this time would not allow the proposing team to rebut. The arguments you are defending are arguments that have already been made by your first and second speakers.

Community Q&A

• Know your argument. [7] X Research source Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 0
• Start research on your position early so that you are adequately prepare to write a proper speech. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 1
• Take notes and adjust your speech as you listen to each speaker. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rIANDXXu-k
• ↑ https://www.theclassroom.com/write-good-closing-argument-4659.html
• ↑ https://www.dav.com.au/resources/itd_speaker_roles.php
• ↑ https://virtualspeech.com/blog/guide-to-debating

About This Article

If you’re the third speaker on your debate team, you’ll need to write a speech that attacks the opponent’s case. Before the debate, make a list of key points from the first and second speaker so you have them ready when it’s time for your closing summary. You can add to these notes during the actual debate so you can incorporate information about your challenger’s arguments. To make your proposition, restate your team’s position and rebut the opposition’s arguments. Then, defend your affirmative arguments with your own, unique supporting examples. Finally, end your speech with your closing statement. To learn how to give your opposition, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Oct 21, 2016

Did this article help you?

Feb 6, 2018

Sovansere Phoeung

Aug 5, 2017

Nov 30, 2021

May 20, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

Example Speeches – First, Second and Third Speakers

Primary School First Speaker Exemplar

An exemplar speech of a first speaker at the Primary School level. With thanks to the students at Pulteney Grammar School for their time in producing this video.

Primary School Second Speaker Exemplar

An exemplar speech of a second speaker at the Primary School level. With thanks to the students at Pulteney Grammar School for their time in producing this video.

Primary School Third Speaker Exemplar

An exemplar speech of a third speaker at the Primary School level. With thanks to the students at Pulteney Grammar School for their time in producing this video.

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

• 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

What is World Schools?

How to win a Worlds Debate Round

The Three Criterion for a Worlds Victory: Style, Content, and Strategy

How to prepare for a WSDC tournament

Giving a Killer 1

Giving a Great 2

Giving a Fire 3

A Strong Reply

Giving a Great Second Speech

The primary goal of this speech is to set up the subsequent speeches in the debate. Naturally, this speech will have to include a substantial amount of refutation, as it covers the 16 minutes of material previously delivered in this round. The second speech is most frequently structured as follows: intro, clash points, and the introduction of the third substantive at the end of the speech. The third substantive tends to be a substantive that turns the contents of the opponents’ speeches. For example, on the motion “this house would end sanctions on Venezuela,” a proposing team could be expected to make arguments about the economic benefits to the Venezuelan economy of ending sanctions. A good third substantive argument might be that sanctions force the Venezuelan economy to liberalize and ease the state-control of resources in a fragile economy. Clash points in the second speech should group common positions together and respond accordingly, covering the material presented by both sides in a certain clash point. For example, on the prior motion regarding sanctions against Venezuela, the clash points could be centered around economic growth, risk of conflict, and principle argumentation. There is a large amount of flexibility and variance in approaches that different debaters take to writing the second speeches, so feel free to experiment and try new approaches.

Debate Speech

Debate. What would be the first thing that pops in our minds when we think of that? To some, it is an intellectual argument on about almost anything. From various concepts such as love and the reason of living in the first place to something serious such as political views of a person. Merriam-Webster defines debate as a contention by words or arguments. In terms of law or government, it is the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure. A debate can also serve as a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

• Speech Templates
• Welcome Speech

Although the concept of a debate is that it does not always have to be so formal and that the exchange of ideas can be casually done, there are occasions that it will have to be formal especially when representing your school for a inter-school competition or simply for a debate class. You may also see motovational speech .

Considering that the topic has already been assigned to you and your group mates, it is important that you begin preparing for your debate with the opposing party. Here are some examples listed down.

1.  Preparing for the Debate Speech

2. research the topic very thoroughly with credible information..

• Brainstorm the topic and research before you sit down to write. Write out a pro and con list. If you are on a debate team, do this together. Each member could discuss the pro and con lists, and then strike the weaker reasons until you are left with three or four reasons that seem strongest in support or opposition.You may also see self introduction speech .
• It also helps to spend time in the library since not every resource material can be found on the internet.
• You and the team would also want to deal with the strongest arguments on the other side in your speech as ignoring the other side’s best arguments can weaken your rhetorical appeal.You may also see informative speech .

3. Write an outline of your speech.

• A simple debate outline should at least contain these four parts: An introduction, your thesis argument, your key points to back your stance up, and a conclusion. For unknown terminologies, prepare a definition in advance so that you can have an answer when the judges ask you may also see presentation speech .
• You can break each of those four part into subcategories. It’s often a good idea to write the introduction and conclusion last, focusing on the thesis argument and the evidence to back it up first.

Writing the Debate Speech

1. write an introduction that is catchy and interesting..

Who does not love a good and catchy introduction? But for these kinds of situations, it is best to stay mindful as the whole point of this debate lies in the formality sense which is something to be taken seriously.

• For instance, a simple good morning to all parties involved and witnessing the said debate will suffice. There is no need for extra remarks or commentaries if not asked.You may also see orientation speech
• its critical to always make a good impression, especially to the judges as this will make them think that the debater is persuasive speech. In order to achieve this, one technique in writing a strong introduction is to contextualize the topic, especially when the topic depicts a present situation.
• Some introduction speech can also focus on prominent examples, quotations, or on a personal anecdote that can help establish a rapport with the audience and judges. Be mindful when using humor though as it involves risks that can eventually lead to awkward silences if not done right. Find a relevant specific that illustrates the underlying point.

2. Outline where you stand very clearly.

Make sure that you point out which stance your team belongs to. Since this is a debate, being part of the positive or negative stance does not serve as an advantage for as long as you are able make your points get through the judges and the audience, then it is enough.You may also see speech examples for students .

• Don’t muddle on your assigned stance. It needs to be extremely clear whether you affirm or negate the resolution, so don’t try to confuse and eventually contradict yourself in the middle of the debate. The audience also should not have to wait until the end to find out. Make your stance very clear, and do it early on. You may also see declamation speech .

3. Make key points to back up your stance.

As early as possible, you have to identify the main key points found in your speech.

• One good way to do this is to back up your position with three to four strong points of supporting argumentation. More than one to two key points are required to back up your stance.
• In every speech, the body or the “meat” of the speech is always the most important part . But keep in mind that you will only be given a short span of time for you to say your piece before time runs out (perhaps 3 ½ minutes to 30 seconds for an opening and for a conclusion, depending on the given rules of the debate).

4. Develop your key points.

Even as you deliver your key points in the said debate, it still cannot be without substance. Back every single one of your key points up with examples, statistics and other resources that can be found during your research.

Focus on the causes of the problem, the effects of the problem, expert opinion, examples, and statistics. Then after that, present a solution. In a debate, you are not given the opportunity to use a PowerPoint Presentation, so as you continue discussing the points of your stance, allow your audience to visualize on what you are saying. You may also see debate speech. You may also see graduation speech .

Do not only attempt to appeal to the motives and emotions of the listener, but also to their sense of fair play, desire to save, to be helpful, to care about the community, and others with a light touch.Try using rhetorical questions which make your opponents consider the validity of their point. Consider 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. You may also see inspirational speech .

5. Understand the art of persuasion.

Finally, what is a debate with persuasion? Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle studied the art of persuasion, and by understanding their techniques will further help your debate speech. You may also tribute speech .

Aristotle believed that speakers are more persuasive writing 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 (the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion) and deductive (if all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion is necessarily true). You may also see wedding speech .

We hope you enjoyed browsing through our debate speech examples. Debating is both an entertaining an serious activity especially when tackling issues on humanity and the natural environment. Despite what topics you choose, there is a standard forma. You may also see youth speech .

Debate Speech Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Create a Debate Speech on the pros and cons of school uniforms

Generate a Debate Speech on the effectiveness of the death penalty

• Share full article

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

A Plan to Remake the Middle East

While talks for a cease-fire between israel and hamas continue, another set of negotiations is happening behind the scenes..

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.

From New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.

[MUSIC CONTINUES]

Today, if and when Israel and Hamas reach a deal for a ceasefire fire, the United States will immediately turn to a different set of negotiations over a grand diplomatic bargain that it believes could rebuild Gaza and remake the Middle East. My colleague Michael Crowley has been reporting on that plan and explains why those involved in it believe they have so little time left to get it done.

It’s Wednesday, May 8.

Michael, I want to start with what feels like a pretty dizzying set of developments in this conflict over the past few days. Just walk us through them?

Well, over the weekend, there was an intense round of negotiations in an effort, backed by the United States, to reach a ceasefire in the Gaza war.

The latest ceasefire proposal would reportedly see as many as 33 Israeli hostages released in exchange for potentially hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

US officials were very eager to get this deal.

Pressure for a ceasefire has been building ahead of a threatened Israeli assault on Rafah.

Because Israel has been threatening a military offensive in the Southern Palestinian city of Rafah, where a huge number of people are crowded.

Fleeing the violence to the North. And now they’re packed into Rafah. Exposed and vulnerable, they need to be protected.

And the US says it would be a humanitarian catastrophe on top of the emergency that’s already underway.

Breaking news this hour — very important breaking news. An official Hamas source has told The BBC that it does accept a proposal for a ceasefire deal in Gaza.

And for a few hours on Monday, it looked like there might have been a major breakthrough when Hamas put out a statement saying that it had accepted a negotiating proposal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the ceasefire proposal does not meet his country’s requirements. But Netanyahu says he will send a delegation of mediators to continue those talks. Now, the terms —

But those hopes were dashed pretty quickly when the Israelis took a look at what Hamas was saying and said that it was not a proposal that they had agreed to. It had been modified.

And overnight —

Israeli troops stormed into Rafah. Video showing tanks crashing over a sign at the entrance of the city.

— the Israelis launched a partial invasion of Rafah.

It says Hamas used the area to launch a deadly attack on Israeli troops over the weekend.

And they have now secured a border crossing at the Southern end of Gaza and are conducting targeted strikes. This is not yet the full scale invasion that President Biden has adamantly warned Israel against undertaking, but it is an escalation by Israel.

So while all that drama might suggest that these talks are in big trouble, these talks are very much still alive and ongoing and there is still a possibility of a ceasefire deal.

And the reason that’s so important is not just to stop the fighting in Gaza and relieve the suffering there, but a ceasefire also opens the door to a grand diplomatic bargain, one that involves Israel and its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians, and would have very far-reaching implications.

And what is that grand bargain. Describe what you’re talking about?

Well, it’s incredibly ambitious. It would reshape Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbors, principally Saudi Arabia. But it’s important to understand that this is a vision that has actually been around since well before October 7. This was a diplomatic project that President Biden had been investing in and negotiating actually in a very real and tangible way long before the Hamas attacks and the Gaza war.

And President Biden was looking to build on something that President Trump had done, which was a series of agreements that the Trump administration struck in which Israel and some of its Arab neighbors agreed to have normal diplomatic relations for the first time.

Right, they’re called the Abraham Accords.

That’s right. And, you know, Biden doesn’t like a lot of things, most things that Trump did. But he actually likes this, because the idea is that they contribute to stability and economic integration in the Middle East, the US likes Israel having friends and likes having a tight-knit alliance against Iran.

President Biden agrees with the Saudis and with the Israelis, that Iran is really the top threat to everybody here. So, how can you build on this? How can you expand it? Well, the next and biggest step would be normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

And the Saudis have made clear that they want to do this and that they’re ready to do this. They weren’t ready to do it in the Trump years. But Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, has made clear he wants to do it now.

So this kind of triangular deal began to take shape before October 7, in which the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia would enter this three way agreement in which everyone would get something that they wanted.

And just walk through what each side gets in this pre-October 7th version of these negotiations?

So for Israel, you get normalized ties with its most important Arab neighbor and really the country that sets the tone for the whole Muslim world, which is Saudi Arabia of course. It makes Israel feel safer and more secure. Again, it helps to build this alliance against Iran, which Israel considers its greatest threat, and it comes with benefits like economic ties and travel and tourism. And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been very open, at least before October 7th, that this was his highest diplomatic and foreign policy priority.

For the Saudis, the rationale is similar when it comes to Israel. They think that it will bring stability. They like having a more explicitly close ally against Iran. There are economic and cultural benefits. Saudi Arabia is opening itself up in general, encouraging more tourism.

But I think that what’s most important to the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is what he can get from the United States. And what he has been asking for are a couple of essential things. One is a security agreement whose details have always been a little bit vague, but I think essentially come down to reliable arms supplies from the United States that are not going to be cut off or paused on a whim, as he felt happened when President Biden stopped arms deliveries in 2021 because of how Saudi was conducting its war in Yemen. The Saudis were furious about that.

Saudi Arabia also wants to start a domestic nuclear power program. They are planning for a very long-term future, possibly a post-oil future. And they need help getting a nuclear program off the ground.

And they want that from the US?

And they want that from the US.

Now, those are big asks from the us. But from the perspective of President Biden, there are some really enticing things about this possible agreement. One is that it will hopefully produce more stability in the region. Again, the US likes having a tight-knit alliance against Iran.

The US also wants to have a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia. You know, despite the anger at Mohammed bin Salman over the murder of the Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, the Biden administration recognizes that given the Saudis control over global oil production and their strategic importance in the Middle East, they need to have a good relationship with them. And the administration has been worried about the influence of China in the region and with the Saudis in particular.

So this is an opportunity for the US to draw the Saudis closer. Whatever our moral qualms might be about bin Salman and the Saudi government, this is an opportunity to bring the Saudis closer, which is something the Biden administration sees as a strategic benefit.

All three of these countries — big, disparate countries that normally don’t see eye-to-eye, this was a win-win-win on a military, economic, and strategic front.

That’s right. But there was one important actor in the region that did not see itself as winning, and that was the Palestinians.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

First, it’s important to understand that the Palestinians have always expected that the Arab countries in the Middle East would insist that Israel recognize a Palestinian state before those countries were willing to essentially make total peace and have normal relations with Israel.

So when the Abraham Accords happened in the Trump administration, the Palestinians felt like they’d been thrown under the bus because the Abraham Accords gave them virtually nothing. But the Palestinians did still hold out hope that Saudi Arabia would be their savior. And for years, Saudi Arabia has said that Israel must give the Palestinians a state if there’s going to be a normal relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Now the Palestinians see the Saudis in discussions with the US and Israel about a normalization agreement, and there appears to be very little on offer for the Palestinians. And they are feeling like they’re going to be left out in the cold here.

Right. And in the minds of the Palestinians, having already been essentially sold out by all their other Arab neighbors, the prospect that Saudi Arabia, of all countries, the most important Muslim Arab country in the region, would sell them out, had to be extremely painful.

It was a nightmare scenario for them. And in the minds of many analysts and US officials, this was a factor, one of many, in Hamas’s decision to stage the October 7th attacks.

Hamas, like other Palestinian leaders, was seeing the prospect that the Middle East was moving on and essentially, in their view, giving up on the Palestinian cause, and that Israel would be able to have friendly, normal relations with Arab countries around the region, and that it could continue with hardline policies toward the Palestinians and a refusal, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly, to accept a Palestinian state.

Right. So Michael, once Hamas carries out the October 7th attacks in an effort to destroy a status quo that it thinks is leaving them less and less relevant, more and more hopeless, including potentially this prospect that Saudi Arabia is going to normalize relations with Israel, what happens to these pre-October 7th negotiations between the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel?

Well, I think there was a snap assumption that these talks were dead and buried. That they couldn’t possibly survive a cataclysm like this.

But then something surprising happened. It became clear that all the parties were still determined to pull-off the normalization.

And most surprisingly of all, perhaps, was the continued eagerness of Saudi Arabia, which publicly was professing outrage over the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks, but privately was still very much engaged in these conversations and trying to move them forward.

And in fact, what has happened is that the scope of this effort has grown substantially. October 7th didn’t kill these talks. It actually made them bigger, more complicated, and some people would argue, more important than ever.

We’ll be right back.

Michael, walk us through what exactly happens to these three-way negotiations after October 7th that ends up making them, as you just said, more complicated and more important than ever?

Well, it’s more important than ever because of the incredible need in Gaza. And it’s going to take a deal like this and the approval of Saudi Arabia to unlock the kind of massive reconstruction project required to essentially rebuild Gaza from the rubble. Saudi Arabia and its Arab friends are also going to be instrumental in figuring out how Gaza is governed, and they might even provide troops to help secure it. None of those things are going to happen without a deal like this.

Fascinating.

But this is all much more complicated now because the price for a deal like this has gone up.

And by price, you mean?

What Israel would have to give up. [MUSIC PLAYING]

From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, you have an Arab population that is furious at Israel. It now feels like a really hard time to do a normalization deal with the Israelis. It was never going to be easy, but this is about as bad a time to do it as there has been in a generation at least. And I think that President Biden and the people around him understand that the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians is intolerable and it is going to lead to chaos and violence indefinitely.

So now you have two of the three parties to this agreement, the Saudis and the Americans, basically asking a new price after October 7th, and saying to the Israelis, if we’re going to do this deal, it has to not only do something for the Palestinians, it has to do something really big. You have to commit to the creation of a Palestinian state. Now, I’ll be specific and say that what you hear the Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, say is that the agreement has to include an irreversible time-bound path to a Palestinian state.

We don’t know exactly what that looks like, but it’s some kind of a firm commitment, the likes of which the world and certainly the Israelis have not made before.

Something that was very much not present in the pre-October 7th vision of this negotiation. So much so that, as we just talked about, the Palestinians were left feeling completely out in the cold and furious at it.

That’s right. There was no sign that people were thinking that ambitiously about the Palestinians in this deal before October 7th. And the Palestinians certainly felt like they weren’t going to get much out of it. And that has completely changed now.

So, Michael, once this big new dimension after October 7th, which is the insistence by Saudi Arabia and the US that there be a Palestinian state or a path to a Palestinian state, what is the reaction specifically from Israel, which is, of course, the third major party to this entire conversation?

Well, Israel, or at least its political leadership, hates it. You know, this is just an extremely tough sell in Israel. It would have been a tough sell before October 7th. It’s even harder now.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is completely unrepentantly open in saying that there’s not going to be a Palestinian state on his watch. He won’t accept it. He says that it’s a strategic risk to his country. He says that it would, in effect, reward Hamas.

His argument is that terrorism has forced a conversation about statehood onto the table that wasn’t there before October 7th. Sure, it’s always in the background. It’s a perennial issue in global affairs, but it was not something certainly that the US and Israel’s Arab neighbors were actively pushing. Netanyahu also has — you know, he governs with the support of very right-wing members of a political coalition that he has cobbled together. And that coalition is quite likely to fall apart if he does embrace a Palestinian state or a path to a Palestinian state.

Now, he might be able to cobble together some sort of alternative, but it creates a political crisis for him.

And finally, you know, I think in any conversation about Israel, it’s worth bearing in mind something you hear from senior US officials these days, which is that although there is often finger pointing at Netanyahu and a desire to blame Netanyahu as this obstructionist who won’t agree to deals, what they say is Netanyahu is largely reflecting his population and the political establishment of his country, not just the right-wingers in his coalition who are clearly extremist.

But actually the prevailing views of the Israeli public. And the Israeli public and their political leaders across the spectrum right now with few exceptions, are not interested in talking about a Palestinian state when there are still dozens and dozens of Israeli hostages in tunnels beneath Gaza.

So it very much looks like this giant agreement that once seemed doable before October 7th might be more important to everyone involved than ever, given that it’s a plan for rebuilding Gaza and potentially preventing future October 7th’s from happening, but because of this higher price that Israel would have to pay, which is the acceptance of a Palestinian state, it seems from everything you’re saying, that this is more and more out of reach than ever before and hard to imagine happening in the immediate future. So if the people negotiating it are being honest, Michael, are they ready to acknowledge that it doesn’t look like this is going to happen?

Well, not quite yet. As time goes by, they certainly say it’s getting harder and harder, but they’re still trying, and they still think there’s a chance. But both the Saudis and the Biden administration understand that there’s very little time left to do this.

Well, what do you mean there’s very little time left? It would seem like time might benefit this negotiation in that it might give Israel distance from October 7th to think potentially differently about a Palestinian state?

Potentially. But Saudi Arabia wants to get this deal done in the Biden administration because Mohammed bin Salman has concluded this has to be done under a Democratic president.

Because Democrats in Congress are going to be very reluctant to approve a security agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

It’s important to understand that if there is a security agreement, that’s something Congress is going to have to approve. And you’re just not going to get enough Democrats in Congress to support a deal with Saudi Arabia, who a lot of Democrats don’t like to begin with, because they see them as human rights abusers.

But if a Democratic president is asking them to do it, they’re much more likely to go along.

Right. So Saudi Arabia fears that if Biden loses and Trump is president, that those same Democrats would balk at this deal in a way that they wouldn’t if it were being negotiated under President Biden?

Exactly. Now, from President Biden’s perspective, politically, think about a president who’s running for re-election, who is presiding right now over chaos in the Middle East, who doesn’t seem to have good answers for the Israeli-Palestinian question, this is an opportunity for President Biden to deliver what could be at least what he would present as a diplomatic masterstroke that does multiple things at once, including creating a new pathway for Israel and the Palestinians to coexist, to break through the logjam, even as he is also improving Israel’s relations with Saudi Arabia.

So Biden and the Crown Prince hope that they can somehow persuade Bibi Netanyahu that in spite of all the reasons that he thinks this is a terrible idea, that this is a bet worth taking on Israel’s and the region’s long-term security and future?

That’s right. Now, no one has explained very clearly exactly how this is going to work, and it’s probably going to require artful diplomacy, possibly even a scenario where the Israelis would agree to something that maybe means one thing to them and means something else to other people. But Biden officials refuse to say that it’s hopeless and they refuse to essentially take Netanyahu’s preliminary no’s for an answer. And they still see some way that they can thread this incredibly narrow needle.

Michael, I’m curious about a constituency that we haven’t been talking about because they’re not at the table in these discussions that we are talking about here. And that would be Hamas. How does Hamas feel about the prospect of such a deal like this ever taking shape. Do they see it as any kind of a victory and vindication for what they did on October 7th?

So it’s hard to know exactly what Hamas’s leadership is thinking. I think they can feel two things. I think they can feel on the one hand, that they have established themselves as the champions of the Palestinian people who struck a blow against Israel and against a diplomatic process that was potentially going to leave the Palestinians out in the cold.

At the same time, Hamas has no interest in the kind of two-state solution that the US is trying to promote. They think Israel should be destroyed. They think the Palestinian state should cover the entire geography of what is now Israel, and they want to lead a state like that. And that’s not something that the US, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else is going to tolerate.

So what Hamas wants is to fight, to be the leader of the Palestinian people, and to destroy Israel. And they’re not interested in any sort of a peace process or statehood process.

It seems very clear from everything you’ve said here that neither Israel nor Hamas is ready to have the conversation about a grand bargain diplomatic program. And I wonder if that inevitably has any bearing on the ceasefire negotiations that are going on right now between the two of them that are supposed to bring this conflict to some sort of an end, even if it’s just temporary?

Because if, as you said, Michael, a ceasefire opens the door to this larger diplomatic solution, and these two players don’t necessarily want that larger diplomatic solution, doesn’t that inevitably impact their enthusiasm for even reaching a ceasefire?

Well, it certainly doesn’t help. You know, this is such a hellish problem. And of course, you first have the question of whether Israel and Hamas can make a deal on these immediate issues, including the hostages, Palestinian prisoners, and what the Israeli military is going to do, how long a ceasefire might last.

But on top of that, you have these much bigger diplomatic questions that are looming over them. And it’s not clear that either side is ready to turn and face those bigger questions.

So while for the Biden administration and for Saudi Arabia, this is a way out of this crisis, these larger diplomatic solutions, it’s not clear that it’s a conversation that the two parties that are actually at war here are prepared to start having.

Well, Michael, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

On Tuesday afternoon, under intense pressure from the US, delegations from Israel and Hamas arrived in Cairo to resume negotiations over a potential ceasefire. But in a statement, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that even with the talks underway, his government would, quote, “continue to wage war against Hamas.”

Here’s what else you need to know today. In a dramatic day of testimony, Stormy Daniels offered explicit details about an alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump that ultimately led to the hush money payment at the center of his trial. Daniels testified that Trump answered the door in pajamas, that he told her not to worry that he was married, and that he did not use a condom when they had sex.

That prompted lawyers for Trump to seek a mistrial based on what they called prejudicial testimony. But the judge in the case rejected that request. And,

We’ve seen a ferocious surge of anti-Semitism in America and around the world.

In a speech on Tuesday honoring victims of the Holocaust, President Biden condemned what he said was the alarming rise of anti-Semitism in the United States after the October 7th attacks on Israel. And he expressed worry that too many Americans were already forgetting the horrors of that attack.

The Jewish community, I want you to know I see your fear, your hurt, and your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will.

Today’s episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Clare Toeniskoetter, and Rikki Novetsky. It was edited by Liz O. Baylen, contains original music by Marion Lozano, Elisheba Ittoop, and Dan Powell, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. 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.

• May 14, 2024   •   35:20 Voters Want Change. In Our Poll, They See It in Trump.
• May 13, 2024   •   27:46 How Biden Adopted Trump’s Trade War With China
• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Michael Crowley

Produced by Nina Feldman ,  Clare Toeniskoetter and Rikki Novetsky

Edited by Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Marion Lozano ,  Elisheba Ittoop and Dan Powell

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

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

If and when Israel and Hamas reach a deal for a cease-fire, the United States will immediately turn to a different set of negotiations over a grand diplomatic bargain that it believes could rebuild Gaza and remake the Middle East.

Michael Crowley, who covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times, explains why those involved in this plan believe they have so little time left to get it done.

On today’s episode

Michael Crowley , a reporter covering the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The New York Times.

Background reading :

Talks on a cease-fire in the Gaza war are once again at an uncertain stage .

Here’s how the push for a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia looked before Oct. 7 .

From early in the war, President Biden has said that a lasting resolution requires a “real” Palestinian state .

Here’s what Israeli officials are discussing about postwar Gaza.

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.

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.

Michael Crowley covers the State Department and U.S. foreign policy for The Times. He has reported from nearly three dozen countries and often travels with the secretary of state. More about Michael Crowley

Advertisement