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