K, the rebuttal speech, s'far as I can remember or know:

-ABSOLUTELY NO introduction of new points. This is why the first second speaker has to cram as many points as possible into their speech. The rebuttal speaker can phrased it into a more evolved level, though, taking into consideration:

--what implications could this policy have?

--why are we doing this again? [LOL]

--what did the opp.party say, and how it is overidden?

-ONLY 2-3 main points of rebuttal. First two are the opp.party firstspeaker's points, which you have to rebutt VERY CLEARLY, and the optional third could be the second speaker's points. You MUST emphasise on those points which whacks their cases, now knowing how the debate has progressed. For example: "The opposition today has told us that they are going to deplore YET negotiate. Don't you find this hypocritical? Whose side are you on??? They are merely sitting on the fence, trying to have their cake and eat it. Negotiating has its advantages and disadvantages, and what the opposition is SUPPOSED to do, is to tell us how the disadvantages have an upper hand, how they are more IMPORTANT than the advantages!"

[Yes, I am still bitter about the MJC.]

Yepp, that's mainly it. These are the two main criteria. Feel free to edit people-I'm in Malaysia and most likely have forgotten A LOT.

And this is for the benefit for the new sec1s. Speaking of them, I really really REALLY hope we can end the suspense sooner.

[Why am I the only one posting???]

xxdenise.

Okay, I figured that I haven't Really given an indepth explanation on how reply speeches work, so here's reply speeches 101, JS style. For the purposes of this tutorial, I will be using one motion throughout for reference; THBT athletes caught taking performance-enhancing drugs should be banned for life.

What is a reply speech?

A reply speech is a SUMMARY speech. This means you do not bring up any NEW arguments in your speech. This includes new rebuttals. You CAN, however, rephrase arguments that have been mentioned before so that people can see them more clearly and precisely. For instance, if you are opp and you haven't already talked about how it is too harsh a punishment for a one time affair, then you CANNOT mention this argument. However, if, for instance, your first speaker says, "Ladies and gentlemen, one issue we have against the motion is the fact that a life ban is too harsh a punishment for an act such as the consumption of performance-enhancing drugs", and then you, as reply speaker, goes on to say, "Members of this house, when we talk about professional athletes, we must understand that the sports they play are their very Bread and Butter. If you take the sport away from the sportsman, he is left with absolutely nothing. And thus we question, does the act of taking performance enhancing drugs, all with no ill-intent other than to achieve greater heights in his or her sporting career, warrants a penalty as crippling as a life ban" - this is completely legitimate.

HOW should you go about crafting your reply speech?

1. If you know you are doing reply, obviously you need to be VERY diligent in tracking the debate. You MUST know the baseline AND the case division of the opposing team word for word such that you do not misunderstand them and summarise wrongly. Listening skills are KEY here.

2. Now, if you are doing your substantive speeches, you'd usually say "I have 3 points of contention" with the opposition, or something like that right? Similarly, with reply speeches, you identify the areas of clash. But there is a SLIGHT difference. Instead of ATTACKING the other team's case, you need to tell me HOW each team dealt with the arguments in the debate. For example, prop's case div might be: -i) Uphold fairness of sport (cos perf-enhancing drugs cause
permanent muscular growth that thus undermines the notion of sportsmanship),
-ii) Deterrent effect, and Opp's case div might be
i) Punishment doesn't fit crime (too harsh),
ii) Legalising it levels playing ground, cos everyone uses the
drugs,
-iii) Better for the sport, because new heights are reached, new limits/records are broken, greater audience, more revenue.

Now, that's a lot of points, right? If I were an adjudicator and the guy goes up and tells me "There are 6 points I would like to make here" I would immediately HEAD-DESK. 6 points in 3 minutes? Bad idea. But here's an example of how I MIGHT approach the speech (as prop):

"Ladies and gentlemen, both teams today clashed mainly in 2 areas:

1. The criminality of the act of taking performance-enhancing drugs (is it a crime? if it is, how severe?)

2. If we acknowledge that it is a crime, is the life ban the best way to stop this crime?

On point 1:
Prop told us that it IS a crime - it compromises the notion of fairplay - no fairplay = no point playing sports; sports is all about sportsmanship. Opp told us it shouldn't be a crime - we employ the use of other artificial aids (better swim suits, running shoes etc) to gain better performance, why should drugs be any different? We tell you that the drugs level the playing ground,
they should be allowed. HOWEVER - as prop we tell you what distinguishes the drugs from these aids is that the advantage you gain (muscular growth) is permanent, and you suffer from long lasting health effects. This is different from using better shoes to run faster in ONE race. This is about altering the human body to something it wasn't meant to be, using
artificial means. We find this reprehensible. Sports is about pushing your body to the limits, not popping a few pills so you can outrun the guy next to you. Because it undermines the purpose of sport, it is a crime in this respect.

On point 2:
Opp told us: No. It is too harsh. You will deprive the poor fella the means of supporting himself by banning him
Prop: PRECISELY because it is so harsh, that the athlete's livelihood is at stake, therefore the deterrent effect will be
greatest.
Opp: What about long term ban?
Prop: Noway! First, the muscles you gain with the aid of the drugs are still gonna be there. They are not gonna disappear
unless you stop training; no right minded athlete would, if he were still allowed to play after 5 years. The only way to
deal with a permanent advantage gained through unfair means, is through a permanent ban.

To summarise, because we have proven conclusively the reprehensibility of taking perf-enhancing drugs, and how the ban best deals with it, the motion should stand"

Or you could just stop at the line "The only way to deal with a permanent advantage gained through unfair means, is through a permanent ban." - it gets the point across and is pretty nifty, no? I used it in my reply speech against RI in 2004 and we won (I got best speaker, thanks, thanks). [HAHAHA JS EGO]

So basically - summarise everything. As you write out the skeleton in pt form of your reply speech, strike off the points off each team's case div so you know you have covered EVERYTHING. But at the same time, don't regurgitate the whole speech word for word. Use your own form of categorisation. Make it accessible. Simplify it to broad headings that will
make it easy for people to follow.

Think: If I were a member in the audience who missed out all the earlier speeches and am only gonna hear the reply speeches - will I know comprehensively what the whole debate was about? If your answer is yes, then congratulations, your reply speech is good to go.

I hope you guys have found this useful. Feel free to clarify anything!

Cheers,
Jun Sheng

The points brought up, as much as I covered:


Originally, there was the law 377; however it was replealed in October of some year, if I remember correctly. [It's at wiki; I'm just too lazy to check =.=] Why was it repealed? The AnisAbdullah case acted as a catalyst, forcing the government to review the whole code. Laws are there for a purpose, and they have a specific function. 377A was introduced because 377 was misintepreted. It was originally there to prevent unnatural sexual intercourse between two men. 377A was intro'd to cover up the loopholes in the law.


We should ask ourselves: what would happen of we were to repeal? What would be the consequences, the implications invloved?


If we take out the law, it doesn't mean that we are promoting the gays, but that we are making this not criminal. We believe that this would do benefit to society because _____.


If we are to change later, the main issue is, WHEN, then?


Singapore has no right to privacy. [???]

Societial change:
-Bottom-up [Bottoms up!]: People voice out, yes, and gov changes law.
-Up-bottom: Change law, change mindset. we follow the law BECAUSE it is the law. So, if wev were to change the law, the new generation would grow up in a climate where this law is normal. We cannot possibly expect to change the law today and expect the people to obey, changing their mindsets the very next day. Slavery as an analogy.
-So, why not repeal then change rather than change then repeal?

Not 'promoting homosexuality', but 'encouraging people to turn away from discrimination'

Disciminate the act and not the person.

We cannot have a solution to satisfy everyone. Yes, we agree that that the minority have a voice too, however, repealing doesn't help. even so, would we be pendering to the minority over the majority?

I was zoning out, not in a debating mood, so I didn't get everything and didn't bother to. Anyone, trim this post? Like, why am I the only one posting? =.=

Tomorrow if I'm free I'll do a coupla posts on rebuttal and reply speeches. Perhaps for the benefit of the new Sec1s, whom I'm gritting my teeth over cos I dont even know who they ARE.

xxdenise.

Well, today was one of the worst debates we went through.

For one, we all already hate 377A. Ugh. Our case was quite well set-up, with a good clarification and rebuttals and substantives, but the prop didn't seem to get it, which is due on large amount to my part, since I did not make it crystal-clear in my speech. Yes, I apologise, but what's done done. [I am determined not to cry over split milk.]

Anyway, I am not going to go into details about the debrief, which I might do so perhaps tomorrow if I have the time and capacity to. I think the CHIJ girls were really quite nice, they even showed me where the washroom was (:

Lols. More next time. [i cant gurantee]

xxdenise.

Ok just a short post before I go to bed.

Well, basically, we're sparring with CHIJ TK tomorrow based on the motion:
THW repeal 377A.

=.= Yeah, know. Been there, done that. Still, we're more familiar with it.

We'll toss a coin to decide on the proposition or opposition, so I've gotten notes for both.

SO...basically I am very sleepy and dont care about whatever crappy Chinese spelling I have tomorrow, which my teacher only told us to study for TODAY, so, heck care. I'll just run through tomorrow morning; my mom tested me on the strokes just time.

SO basically, GOODNIGHT PEOPLE.

xxdenise.

Ohkayyy.

So I believe the arts censorship thing is off. Well, anyway, we still have a new motion, which we're to prep for this upcoming Tuesday:

THBT fast food companies should pay compensation for damaging people's health.

EVERYONE is to do a 6-minute first prop speech, in which the main points are to be squeezed in. No need for CaseDiv, just a style exercise.

"For WEDNESDAY - we'll be sparring CHIJ TP at their home turf. The coach is a good friend of mine who happens to be a bra-burning sort who also bakes very well. So try to impress her. I'm not sure how good the girls are, but if the MJC competition has taught us anything, A div doesn't necessarily mean very good. So just give it your best shot, and we'll see how it goes."

Okay, that's what js said, basically.

"On a related note - any of you have contacts with schs with MALE debaters (esp all guy schs)? I think we've had enough opportunities to spar girls, and I'd really like you guys to be exposed to a more, uh, macho style of debating, too."

In our free time, let's just research more Invitationals and guy schools. Wait-Care has Daniel's number doesn't she? SO take the initiative to call him!

HAHAH. Maybe I should get a rumours page set-up. LOL.

[btw, no offence, just inserting a little relaxation. I don't mind if Carissa says I'm two-timing Yingchang and Elijah, though I'd probably strangle her for that.]

Oh, one more thing.

We have a friendly with CHIJ on Wednesday next week, make sure you arrange for it. It's just a friendly, really. ChungChengHigh, Yishun, whom we befriended today, has also requested to have a spar on the 17th of February. We are currently awaiting js's response, and the teacher's Ms Kali and Ms Rani.

[I sound so formal.]

xxdenise.

Prepared: THW deplore negotiating with terrorists. [OPP]

Impromptu: THW not allow women who have had plastic surgery to take part in beauty pageants. [or smth][PROP]

Semi-Finals: THW allow the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports
>ChungChengHigh[Yishun] was prop, St.Joseph'sInstitute Opp.
>There isn't much I can say about this; I didn't track this debate
>The prop had a strange policy though. They only allow the use of drugs in trainings and trials but not competitions.
>The opp should have rebutted it right out, but they didn't and stuck to their prepared substantive points.
>One thing that really irked me was, athlete [ath-leet] was either a-the-leet or a-the-leek. It was killer, I say! [sorry, I'm a purist for English] and i thought of something so, erm, horny, which I think is unsuitable for this blog, incase the phrase corrupts people's minds.
>The opp won, St.Joseph's

Finals: THBT repeat sex offenders should be incarcerated for life
>DAMN FUNNY SIA! LIKE SLAP IN THE FACE
>Prop: SJI, Opp: Xinmin
>The prop began, as usual. Daniel [whom Carissa asked for his number] talked about:
>Definition: sex offenders: people older than legal age who violate one or more minorities under the legal age
>2tiers: emotional, physical trauma [This kept showing up in the debate, I was so frustrated my eyebrows went MAD. Literally.]
>To criminals who have gone though extensive counselling but are still unrepentant
>100 000 people raped in USA [HUH?! I was thinking. That's rather exaggerated. But I guess it's pretty close, America is a big country.]

>Here come the fun part.
>Opp2 declared: "Yes, we agree that the sex offenders are unpardonable, that's why we demand a harsher punishment: the DEATH PENALTY."

IT WAS LIKE, HUH?! THROUGHOUT THE ROOM. PEOPLE WERE LIKE, MAKING NOISES OF SHOCK, WTH SO FUNNY AND UNEXPECTED

>and so, the parallel cases started. SJI was having a REALLY unlucky day.
>the prop was really frustrating. I think they're really inflexible, they made it seem like a minor rebuttal and stuck to their case. "That's just an easy way out!" They just continued on to their substantives:
>remove risk of threat; more girl and guys violated
>Threat to the criminal; knowing you would be incar.ed then would not commit the crime [I was all, HUH?! WHAT IN HELL? THIS WOULD ONLY HELP THEIR CASE, NOT YOURS]

I thought they might bend to neccessity and talk about how death is too harsh. Later on, they talked so much about deterrence the other points became, like, redundant. Government resources? Social backlash?

>Opp2: Criminals would fear death
>No threat of repeat: once hanged, they will not revive and starting raping innocent young children.
>Pay back grievances to traumatised family & victim

>Prop3: Death occurs the whole time, loss of loved one is an inevitable part of life. And something about, it's better of they tke it in their stride. [I was all, WTH, DO YOU MEAN YOU ENCOURAGE RAPINGS SO THE FAMILY CAN LEARN TO COPE WITH TRAUMA?] Maybe the phrasing was a little off, but even so, it's not exactly valid.
>Not having a life is worse than death, let 'em suffer the way their victims did. [At first I was gaping. Are they saying we should get someone to rape them? No pun intended, but to me that's what it sounded like.]
>I liked the second point. It at least shows that the prop is fighting back, adressing the opp proper instead of ignoring them and sticking to their written cue cards.
>Replies was okay, just fine.
>It was a close call, but SJI won. It was damn funny, seeing their faces! They were all, SHOCK.

Personally, I feel that Xinmin should have won, even though they did not phrase the EXTREMELY good point so as to attack the prop directly.

It's such a pity you all left...

Hey Deb8rs~!

Just blogging to say that EVERYONE did an EXCELLENT job, CONGRATULATIONS, esp. YINGCHEN, who clinched BEST SPEAKER in the impromptu.

Apologies for the caps. I'm feeling...high. and hyper. and simply elated.

Comments we got, as far as i could remember:

-Yingchang-Your rebuttals mostly. I couldn't tell if you were rolling your eyes.

-Denise-Quite confident [???!!!] but the REPLY SPEECH was penalised for using rebutals. No identifying clashes, how both sides handled the case, and the rebuttal in Opp2 speech. Elaborate.

-Yingchen-Great. Just try to phrase nicely and work more on strategy.

-Carissa-didn't get the adjudicator's comments, but your style as good. Strategy and structure are areas you need to work on though.

-Junwei-you were good, but your fever interrupted your voice. There was one part where you suddenly "EXACTLY!" Damn funny!

It was SO ironical, we lost the prep but won the impromptu. Itreally was an EXCELLENT JOB people, I gained BARROWLOADS of experience.

[Except for the part where I screwed my reply.]

NANHUADEBATORS FOR THE WIN!!!

Wellllllll.

Venue: Meridian Junior College, Pasir Ris
Time: 8am-6pm, setting out at 7am

I'm still cursing that stupid reply I have to do. It's so....I'LL BE DAMNED WHEN I SCREW

Well, we're basically quite prepared. Yingchen, no, you've already gotten loads of preparation, so no worries.

Me and Yingchang have BIG issues though. Mostly me.

Mispronounced words and misplaced emphasis.

-terrorists
-manipulating
-ambiguity
-legitimate
-negotiating [i keep stumbling!]

-team
-reality
-these
-and some others which I dont really know, cos it was SingXuan who listed them out...

We all have our quirks. Yingchang rolls his eyes, Yingchen blinks rapidy, and I pace too much. Like less eye contact?

There's a session tomorrow, possibly at 3.15pm. So, let's just all give it a shot, k?

[Btw, i still hate reply. I've NEVER done reply, man.]

xxdenise.

Decided.

1st Opp: Ow Yingchang
2nd Opp: Denise Yong
3rd Opp: Kwok Yingchen
Reply: Denise [!!!]

Carissa and Junwei are reserves. They'll participate in the impromptu.

Yingchang has to squeeze 3 clarys, rebuttals, case div, and 3 subs.
Yingchen has to do an impromptu rebuttal speech.
I have to do reply!!!

I KNOW I will screw this thing. I'll just stutter and fumble and my speech will be below 4 mins.

xxdenise.

[PS: Watch out for js, he'll be giving out hand signals; ]

Ok guys.

We're up in the MJC Invitationals this Saturday. And since we're shorthanded what with Junwei and Carissa away at OC, we're hard-pressed for time. And stuff.

DESPAIR!

[Kidding. I'm quite excited really.]

xxdenise.