a.

Reply Speeches & Points of Information (POIs)

% Reply Speeches
What are they?
- A "biased adjudication
- Each team attempts to present a meta-case for why their case is better than their oppositions.
- Reply speeches are given in reverse order Negative team gives their reply first, by either the
first or second speaker of each team.
- They are scored out of 50, instead of 100
How do we formulate a reply speech?
- Structured to answer TWO (or sometimes THREE) questions about major issues in the debate
- (similar to a thematic rebuttal)
- DO NOT introduce any new material or to rebut
- A near-direct summary of the debate one that uses the material from the debate tactically in
order to show a clear advantage to the speakers team
- The goal is to give the adjudicator reasons to award the debate to the speakers team

Three-step model for reply speeches

1. They say
2. We say
3. Ours win because

Template for working out a reply speech

Strong Opening
Clash points or issues of the Debate / Main questions that need to be answered in the debate
a) ________________________________________________________________________________________
b) ________________________________________________________________________________________
c) ________________________________________________________________________________________
Compare both sides answers and biased adjudication why your side wins on the issue:
They We
a) __________________________________________ a) ________________________________________
__________________________________________ ________________________________________
b) __________________________________________ b) ________________________________________
__________________________________________ ________________________________________
c) __________________________________________ c) ________________________________________
__________________________________________ ________________________________________
*Summary speeches are not rebuttal speeches, dont refute individual arguments, look at the debate
holistically and show the judge why your side was able to win on each issue in the debate.

Sample Reply Speech

(Identify the main clashes in the debate, and the reason(s) why the opposition side should win the
debate according to the reply speaker.)
Hello ladies and gentlemen. Now it is time to wrap up our debate and introduce some main clashes that went on
during this debate.
However, due to the limited time, I would like to elaborate deeply on one main clash rather than superficially state
several clashes. the main and most important clash in this debate today is the question of the effectiveness of the
assassination of a dictator for regime change. The government side has tried to explain why the killing of a dictator
would be effective, but they only provided a best case scenario with no foundation on evidence. Their arguments
are filled with assumptions and hasty generalizations that do not support their claim. The one example they
provided was the example of Hitler, but as our Leader of Opposition has proven, this example is a generalization of
all the other dictators.
In contrast, this house provided substantial evidence as to why assassination of a dictator is not effective and will
not result in a regime change. The examples of the chaos in Rome assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C, or the
failure of the British Commonwealth after the execution of Charles I in 1649, and the failure of the YuShin
government in Korea all lead to one conclusion: assassination of a dictator does not work. We have also provided
better alternatives to the morally wrong assassination of dictators by mentioning the Special UN Tribunal and
Criminal Court Law, which provides better solutions to an unstable regime.
Therefore, due to our superiority in our support of our arguments, the opposition time stands and takes this debate
home. Vote for us. Thank you!