We aim to deliver detailed, individual feedback for each participant that will not only point in a general direction but also show them how to improve with specific examples. Our adjudicators are experienced debaters and teachers whose passion compels them to not only volunteer for the program, but also go the extra mile in delivering their feedback.
Sample
First Negative Speaker
Cindy, we thought that you delivered a great start to your team’s case by introducing all the constituent arguments in an informative and succinct way. However, as we have mentioned in our team feedback, there is no need to restate the topic and adhere rigidly to the formula all the way through. Even though you managed to use the formulaic structure of your speech to your advantage by clearly delineating your arguments, I would encourage you to experiment with methods of presentation which allow you to add your own personal flair and gravitas to the debate in the future. One of the elements which separate the best from the good is often idiosyncrasy, which goes a long way to make your speech feels more alive and focused.
As for your matter, we thought that your arguments have great range, depth, and relevance. You employed first scientific data, logic, and common sense to dismantle the affirmative team’s case, and then appealed to ethics and emotions to reinforce your argument. It is quite the water-tight case but could be further improved by contextualising it within the principal discourses of modern society. For example, when you were referring to the damage which bringing back extinct animals could cause to existing ecosystems, you could expand and elevate your argument by foregrounding humanity’s duty to protect nature and restore balance as we are the primary cause of climate change and mass extinction. You therefore bind your arguments to an inviolable creed of modern, progressive western values, which will be extremely effective as a tool of persuasion and nearly impossible for your opponents to rebut.
As the first negative speaker, you also have the responsibility of including rebuttal in your speech. Although speaking from experience it is often the most difficult part of the debating process, it is integral to your team’s case as it presents the opportunity for you to not only protect your arguments but also use your opponents’ rhetoric against themselves. For example, pointing out the complete lack of support and logic in their argument that bringing back extinct animals proves historical theory.
Overall, it was a great effort given the limited preparation time. Well done.
Second Negative Speaker
Penny, it is widely believed that the second speaker has the most difficult job in a debate, for they must augment the first speaker, rebut the most important arguments of the opponent, introduce their own arguments, and set up for the third speaker, all within a short time frame. You adequately delivered on all of that in today’s debate. We were particularly impressed by how you expanded upon and supported Cindy’s arguments while also keeping the debate fresh and the other team on their feet with a plethora of data and highly specific examples. You stuck snugly to the topic throughout your speech and imbued your language with a strong sense of focus. It is for these reasons that we would like to award you the honour of best speaker in today’s debate, congratulations.
There is, however, still room for improvement. Your arguments, although varied and effective, could be further reinforced with a sense of magnitude. You brought up the prohibitive nature of the economic cost of genetic cloning endeavours as well as the danger it poses, but we felt that you could further punctuate that by illustrating the potential impact of these follies to ensure full appreciation of the severity of the issue. We would also encourage you to refrain from delving too deeply into one specific example as one isolated case is far easier for your opponents to attack than a fully scaffolded argument. Do not make cases the crux of your argument, rather, use them to complement and substantiate your main points.
A good speech can also be elevated by the way in which it is delivered. Although your way of speaking is clear and concise, we encourage you to imbue your voice with more emotion and gravitas, especially when delivering arguments concerning ethics or emotions, so that the emotional core of your arguments are further accentuated. Like Cindy, we believe that you would also find success if you tried to break with convention and inject a more personal touch to your speech. Overall, it was very nicely done and ultimately won your team the debate, good job.
Third Negative Speaker
Lisa, you did a fine job summarising your team’s arguments and tying up loose strands in today’s debate. Your rebuttal is also very well structured all things considered. But we would advise you to steer clear of restating the topic, it is unnecessary and reduces the impact of your arguments. Instead, jump straight into them. Surprise the adjudicators and grab their attention.
For your rebuttal, it can be rather difficult to approach your opponents’ arguments when they are presented in a rhizomatic manner, especially when they are not substantiated with concrete evidence, but that hollowness can give you the freedom to launch your own arguments within your rebuttal. Point out all the logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence, and then flip it to your advantage. For example, the third affirmative speaker used Australian gun regulations as a model for genetic cloning, which can be swiftly dismantled through the foregrounding of its irrelevance. You can then use it as a counter-example, stating that the reason why Australia is so much safer compared to the US is because we keep dangerous technology under strict control, thereby likening firearms to genetic technology and thoroughly dismantling the opposing team’s case through both logic and connotation.
Another point to consider is thematic rebuttal (instead of the point-by-point rebuttal). In summary, you want to identify the main point of contention in the debate e.g. in this case the detriments and risks of genetic engineering vs the possible benefits it may have. Then, you could rebut and sum up your team’s case at the same time. This is especially beneficial considering the short 5 minute time limit. Please reach out to us if you have any questions about this.
Overall, it is a great performance that can be perfected by further improvements. We could also like to encourage you to be more confident in your delivery. Nobody is going to care about one small mix-up. You are doing great, especially how you picked your argument back up after some disruptions, not everyone can manage that. We look forward to seeing more of that confidence in the future. Good job.
John XXIII Debating 