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.