Third speakers are probably the most responsive speakers in the entire debate. According to the rules of parliamentary debating, third speakers are not allowed to have new matter in their speech—that is, new arguments that change the direction of your side’s case. Hence, the third speaker’s job mainly revolves around responding to the other side, as well as weighing up what your team has said.
Third speakers are also called Whips, either Government Whip or Opposition Whip. (I’m not actually sure why they’re called that, but think of it as the final substantive speech to ‘whip’ or make a final attack on your opponent).
A typical speech would involve at least two Clashes.
Clashes
Clash is a term for clashing assertions from both teams. Think about it as one ‘theme’ that the debate has revolved around (most debates will have more than one clash). This ‘theme’ can revolve around a specific actor, a specific benefit or a specific aspect of the debate (principle and practical).
For example: THW abolish the death penalty
- Team GOV’s assertion: Why the death penalty is morally abhorrent
- Team GOV’s assertion: Why the death penalty doesn’t solve crime (and instead wastes resources)
- Team OPP’s assertion: Why the death penalty is principally legitimate
- Team OPP’s assertion: Why the death penalty is an effective deterrent to solve crime
With the two assertions from each team, we can then formulate two clashes:
- Is the death penalty justified (principle)?
- Does the death penalty solve crime?
A decent amount of time should be dedicated to each clash. As with other aspects of debating, there’s no fixed way to do a clash, but here’s a simple structure if you’re just starting off.
Clash:
- Respond to your opponent. Why are their arguments not true? Were there gaps in logic?
- Review your case. What did your first two speakers bring? What were your opponents’ responses and why were they insufficient?
- Weigh your material. Why were your benefits more important? Were they larger in magnitude?
Repeat the process! Find more about responses and weighing.
What do I do during casebuild?
- Help out your teammates! You have a bit of time until your speech, so don’t be afraid to be a bit more flexible during the debate.
- Try to think of things that your opponent might say. This can help you create pre-made rebuttals, which make your job during the debate much easier.
That concludes the guide for third speakers! Sounds fun, right? If you’re interested in delving deeper to a third speaker’s role, you can find more here. Happy debating!
2 replies on “Debate 101: 3rd Speaker”
hi Dazzle, i think it’s pretty clear method coming from you, but i just want to know more about the assertion tamplate for making more than one clashes, since i don’t bring too much clashes so far during my practice as a whip, and how your respponses for often using tamplates during your casebuild or during the debate? let me know, thanks in advance!
Hello! Thank you for your question. In terms of how to make assertions / what to clash about, I suggest paying attention and noting down consistently what the key issues in the debates are. It would help if you could identify what both sides are trying to prove. For example, each side might bring rebuttals as to why the motion is good for a certain group of people (e.g. minority groups, consumers, etc.), so you can make a clash dedicated entirely for this group. 2-3 clashes per speech is usually ideal.
I’m not too sure what you mean in the second part of your question, but I don’t usually have a set template for rebuttals. Usually it will just be a variation of saying “this is not true because ..”. It matters less what the “type” or “template” of the rebuttal is, and your reasoning behind the rebuttal probably matters more. Sometimes in case building, if my first speaker’s case is already set and clear, I will think of possible things the opponent will say and note down potential rebuttals. Hope that was helpful, and feel free to ask any other questions!