The four commandments of being a second speaker

*disclaimer: these principles can actually apply to any responsive position in debate

I. Be a martyr

Learn when and how to sacrifice your prepared case. Too many second speakers try to stick with their
prepared arguments, regardless of their relevance to the discussion. It is always better to be spontaneous
and responsive than prepared but irrelevant.

II. Be a spice girl

The Spice Girls immortalized the phrase “I’ll tell you what you want, what you really really want.”

This is tantamount to saying that response speakers must learn how to respond to what their opponents are
asking from them.

For instance, in a debate about federalism, if the opponents give a case that deals with both political and
economic implications, make sure you respond with a case that also deals with both. If their banner
complaint is something like, “they have to show us that local governments have the capability to raise
money by themselves in a federalized state,” make sure YOU ANSWER THAT CHALLENGE.

Sometimes, it’s as easy and simple as that. Too many response speakers complain about not being able to
think of enough arguments. By knowing how to respond, you will never run out of points.

TIP: If you are at a loss for what to say and you are on the verge of panicking, drop your pen, sit back,
relax, and LISTEN to your opponent. You will always have SOMETHING to say, guaranteed.

III. Be intuitive

Because response speakers often think “out of the box,” there is a propensity to give arguments that sound
logical, but do not translate well to real life nuances. What is logical is not always a valid argument. Make
sure you avoid this pit trap!

Here are a few examples of common unintuitive arguments:

a) “Outsourcing is still beneficial for first world countries because now that third world countries do the
‘dirty jobs,’ laborers from the first world can focus on the burgeoning IT industries.”

This sounds LOGICAL, but it is not realistic. Can a carpenter, kargador, or assembly-line worker from
Montana really learn how to program Linux or network computers? Maybe they can, but it will take 5
years, willingness to learn, access to instructional institutions, and the like.
Work with the real world.

b) “We should allow law firms to advertise on national TV, because it will help inform the public about the
biggest and best law firms in the country.”

Again it sounds LOGICAL. However, do you really think a big law office like ACCRA will actually do a
TV advert? Analogously, does Ateneo, La Salle, or UP advertise on national TV? No, it is usually AMA or
STI that advertises – same goes for law offices; it is usually just the smaller ones that currently post in
classified ads. The argument, while it may sound true, actually has a hollow nuance.

IV. Know the meta-argument

Meta means “beyond”; therefore, a meta-argument is reasoning that goes beyond the argument itself.
Confused? It’s quite simple: a meta-argument is the reason WHY your argument not only is valid and
logical, but is IMPORTANT.
 In a debate where there will usually be seven to eight arguments present per side, each point is fighting for
the adjudicator’s love. While most of these arguments will be heard, only the important ones will be
remembered.

This is a common problem for the second speaker: while his arguments are heard, few are remembered.

Therefore, the best way to remedy this problem is to answer one simple but vital question at the end of
every argument:
WHY IS THIS ARGUMENT IMPORTANT? WHY SHOULD THIS ARGUMENT PERSUADE THE
ADJ TO VOTE FOR YOUR TEAM?

Examples of cases of instantaneous second speaker responses:

The Debate: This house would legalize prostitution

Suppose the PM has already argued that a) legalizing prostitution will lead to safer sex and healthier sex
workers, through regulations, health checks and contraceptive provisions, b) it is a viable taxable industry,
following the Netherlands example

You, as the DPM, has prepared the ff case during prep:

1. Legalizing prostitution will lessen abuse against sex workers because they now have security and
legal recourse against abusive pimps or customers.
2. It encourages tourism.
The LO then clashes against the PM by saying that instead of legalizing prostitution, they want to simply
decriminalize it.
She further argues in her case that legalizing prostitution provides an easy cop-out to impoverished young
people, especially girls, dissuading them from pursuing their education and more sustainable careers.
What should the DPM do?

KILL both arguments!

The first argument is useless, because security and legal recourse is also present in decriminalization.
The second argument, while still valid, is less relevant in the face of a larger issue: both policies’ effects on
young people.

Sometimes, arguments don’t have to be murdered – just tweaked.

The Debate: This house would ban junk food advertisements from children’s TV shows.
Suppose the PM has already argued the basic arguments such as how junk food ads prey on children’s
vulnerability and how the ads’ content encourages over-consumption

The DPM, on the other hand has prepared to answer the following issues in his own case:
1. Why business interest has to give way to government interest
2. Why children have to be protected from their own insatiable desires

When the Leader of Opposition speaks, however, she argues that:

1. It is the parents’ responsibility to look over their children’s welfare, and not the government’s
2. One can strike a balance between business and government interests, such as through placing
surgeon general warnings at the end of ads, or through
What should the DPM do?

TWEAK both arguments!

The DPM’s first argument assumes that business and gov’t interest are mutually exclusive (that you have to
choose one over the other). Now that the LO has argued that they can strike a balance between both
interests, the DPM has to show that either: a) this balance cannot exist (maybe the ad itself can overpower
the warning) or b) that this balance is still detrimental and that the only to solve the problem is to CHOOSE
gov’t interest, wholly sacrificing business interest (be prepared, however, to answer arguments about rights
of businesses).

The DPM’s second argument just looks into why children have to be protected. It now has to specifically
answer why they have to be protected through THIS SPECIFIC manner (gov’t banning adverts),
particularly since the LO also argued that children must be protected, albeit by their parents.

A nice new line of debate has also been opened up: the role of parents, why they may be inadequate, and
the nuances of parentless households and latchkey children.

EXERCISE: Speed debate

Facilitator gives a random, rich motion. Good examples are death penalty, federalism, abolish WTO, use force
against NK, etc.

The faci then randomly calls a person to set-up the debate and give one argument supporting the motion, all w/in a
one minute time limit. (Give a minute or two for initial prep)

Then, the faci randomly calls another person to rebut the previous speaker and give one constructive point. (Also
w/in one minute)

This exercise goes on until everyone (or most everyone) is done.

This will test their ability to respond to changing arguments, issues, and complexions of a debate.