Speech Titans Academy

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts.

As we journey through life, let’s remember that success is a process, not a destination. It’s the little wins, the lessons learned, and the resilience we build along the way.

Don’t be discouraged by setbacks or failures. Instead, use them as opportunities to grow, learn, and come back stronger.

Keep pushing forward, stay focused, and believe in yourself. Your success story is still being written!

Happy Sunday ☺️

Wishing all Muslim Faithfuls Happy Eid El Kabir

POINTS OF INFORMATION
A debate is a show. Show business – no show, no business.
• Debate is competition, it is all about you looking better and being better
• You are always on display.
• Show command – you are in charge of the situation, the arguments, and the competition.
Points of information are important to this:
• To show you are in command of the issues, face to face
• To develop and advance the arguments
• To establish you as the best debater in the room
• To stay active in the debate
The floor is open for members of the other team to offer points of information during the middle six minutes of main speeches. No points during summary/reply speeches. The speaker can either accept or decline points offered.

Making a point – general guidelines
• Short point: most important, a quick point makes it harder for them to come up with a strong answer. Make it clear but quick and they have less time to think. Draft it in advance, reword it, work on it, and then give it in its best form. The rules say you get 15 seconds, you should use less.
• Hard to answer: also most important, make your point difficult and challenging. Think about how you would answer this if you were they, and if you can answer it easily, it is not a good point.
• Prepared: before the debate, during the debate, but prepared.
• Staying active: if you will not speak again you remain engaged in the debate, make yourself hard to forget.
• Rising no matter what: do not rise too often (3-4 times during a speech) but remain determined and you will be noticed even if you are not called on.
• Rising together: sometimes all team members can rise at the same time, and then the judge will think “the speaker must have said somethingweak,” and then they may find something. Do not do this more than once in a debate.
• Language on rising – “Point,” “On that point,” “sir,” “madam,” and nothing more than that. Or, just stand up.
• Timing during speech: offer a point when it will be taken, during a “seam” in the speech between major segments. Anticipate this seam by 15 seconds and then be standing when the time comes.
• Look at the judge: first look at them, then turn and watch the judge for non-verbal feedback, which can be very useful.
• Point need not be a question, and may be a statement.
• Rarely a request for explanations – do not help them more fully explain a poorly explain argument.
• Follow up on points during speeches. Nothing is more powerful evidence than quoting something they said.

Responding to a point – general guidelines
• Short answer: most important, a short answer makes you look like you are in command. You want that. It also allows you to answer without wasting your time.
• Turn it: also most important, do not answer defensively, whenever possible indicate how you solve that problem or difficulty, how you make the situation better with your side of the motion. Think offense, not defense. Defense – “It will not cost so much money;” offense – “It will save money.” Of course, then you have to have a reason why. You can think of a reason why, but you have to believe in yourself and will yourself to do it.
• Dismissing points – you can say “no thank you” but that interrupts your speech. Instead, just wave them down.
• When to take them: have a plan for when you will take points, and then take them then.
• If they go on too long, interrupt them with, “Yes, yes, our answer is….” Because they have gone beyond their 15 seconds you can do this.
• How many to take. Two.
• Who to take them from – take them from the speaker of the other team who you think is their best debater.
• No follow up allowed – it is not a conversation or a cross-examination.
• Never ask for a repeat of a question you did not understand. Do your best to answer it, and the judge may be amazed that you understood a question they did not.
• Look at the judge. You want their non-verbal feedback,
• Following up on points during a speech. Do it, Use your team’s smart answers.
• Two part points by them – answer the first one.
• What if you do not know how to answer it? Say, “I am glad you raise that point, my response is….” And then think of a good answer. All you really want is a second or so to think of an answer, and with this technique you will get that without sounding uncertain.

EXERCISE: POINTS OF INFORMATION
GOALS:
• Develop strong point of information offering skills.
• Develop strong point of information replying skills.
• Make students search for arguments, and thus points to pose, on a variety of motions.

PROCEDURES:
• Give each student a motion.
• Have them outline a very brief first prop or opp speech in about 7-8 minutes of prep.
• Then, have a student stand up and speak on this motion, but after one to one and a half minutes you pound the table and all in the room start offering points of information.
• The speaker MUST take all points from a variety of students.
• It is the responsibility of all students to pose points to the speaker.
• Your role is to be the audience, and make sure to be active. Point out things like: question too long, question too easy, answer too long, weak answer, answer not scoring points for their aide, etc.
• Feel free to interject these comments during the speech, but do not let others do so.
• Make speeches long enough so that you use all the time and everyone gets to speak. If they have to speak for nine minutes taking points for eight of them, fine. It will make them stronger.
• You can also feel free to offer points, but try and model good practice and behaviour.
CAUTIONS:
• Always make sure to maintain decorum, no flagging of points or inappropriate behaviour.
• Watch the time; calculate how log speeches can be before the first one is given based on the time left and how many students are in your group.

A MODEL

The simplest team stance is a model: a proposal to be implemented.Suppose, for example, that your team is arguing in favor of the legalization of ma*****na. As explained earlier, it is not enough to say, “ma*****na should be legalized.” This statement encompasses everything from legalization for limited medical use to legalization under any circumstances, for people of any age, for use as a recreational drug. Your team should go further and present a specific model. For example, you could argue the following.
1. The Congress should pass laws to:
(a) Remove the absolute legal prohibition on the use of ma*****na as a recreational drug;
(b) Require licenses to sell ma*****na;
(c) Require the consumption of ma*****na to be either in the home or on specifically licensed premises;
(d) Require health warnings on ma*****na products;
(e) Tax the sale of ma*****na.
2. The Surgeon General (or similar government body) should run public education campaigns warning the public of the risks of ma*****na usage. In other words, ma*****na should be treated in essentially the same way as alcohol. In this case, the model involved a specific policy to be implemented through the institutions of government. Of course, this need not always be the case. We have already examined the confusing words “we” and “our”—some debates are about government action; others are about individuals’ actions.

How Specific Does the Model Need to Be?

We have established that a model is necessary for many debates in order to provide clarity. But how specific does that model need to be? We know that any stance should be simple and secondary to the main issue of debate, but what does this mean for developing a model?
The simple and often-quoted answer is that the proposition team does not need to write the legislation. That is, the proposition team obviously does not need to spell out the operation of its model with the same degree of clarity and precision that a government might use in proposing a new law or policy.
More precisely, the degree of precision must be determined in the context of the degree to which a team needs to prove the motion. It was explained earlier that, in most motions, the proposition team needs only to show that the motion is generally true, or true as a general proposition. So it is with the model; the model must be sufficiently specific to enable the proposition team to show that the motion is true as a general proposition. However, the model does not need to be any more specific than this.
Take again, for example, the motion “This House believes that we should support the death penalty.” The proposition team cannot really show this motion to be true as a general proposition without specifying who is to be executed and in what manner. As explained earlier, there is such a wide divergence in criminals and means of ex*****on that we could not support capital punishment, even as a general proposition, without knowing more detail.
However, the proposition team does not need to specify, for example, how long a criminal will be given to appeal his or her sentence, nor the extent to which appeal options will be available. If a government were to implement capital punishment, it would be required to specify these details. However, the proposition team does not need to; the length and precise nature of a capital appeal process is not directly relevant to the general question of whether or not we should support capital punishment. Unlike a government, the proposition team does not need to write
the legislation.

THE TEAM STANCE

By now, we know the overall reason that a case should be supported (the theme), and we will soon develop specific arguments to support this. However, something is missing: the detail!Often, teams argue with great passion in favor of abstract concepts that they never properly explain. For example, a speaker might give a moving and persuasive speech about why we should support the death penalty without ever specifying who ought to be executed, or how. When you think about it, these details are fundamentally important to your strategy. For many audience members and adjudicators, there may a big difference between executing serial killers by lethal injection and killing petty thieves by public hanging.Therefore, in almost all debates, you will need to present more detail than the motion itself gives you. If you are to support the death penalty, you must decide who is to be executed, and how. If you support military intervention for human rights, you must decide who will intervene, how, and under what circumstances. If you oppose military intervention for human rights, you must decide what alternative (if any) exists. In other words, you need an overall team stance beyond merely supporting or opposing the motion.It is vital to remember what debating is about: debating is a formal argument about a contentious issue. Debating is not a youth parliament, or a model United Nations conference. Therefore, while your team stance is important, it exists only to help you argue about the main issue.
Many debaters use very long and complex stances, encouraging both teams to spend the debate picking over the finer details. However, this is not what debating is about, and this is not the purpose of a team stance. If you must adopt a team stance, therefore, keep it simple and keep it secondary to the main issue of debate.

Methods of Direct Refutation

To refute the case of an opponent is to demonstrate the error or inadequacy of the arguments on which it is based. Because arguments are the result of reasoning about evidence, the two kinds ofdirect refutation are attacks on the evidence itself and attacks on reasoning (the meaning of evidence).

Attacks on Evidence
Since refutation aims to demonstrate error or inadequacy, the twobroad tests of evidence are “Is the evidence correct?” and “Is the evidence adequate to prove the argument?” The following questions are offered as more particular criteria for testing evidence.

Testing the Facts
1. Are the presented facts consistent in themselves?
2. Are the facts consistent with other known facts, or do they appear to be unusual, “picked” evidence?
3. Are enough facts introduced to support the conclusions derived from them?
4. Are the facts accurate as they are presented?
5. Are the facts verified with good supporting documentation, and is the source qualifed to know and report the facts?

Testing the Opinions
1. Is the opinion from a qualified source? Is the source an expert in the subject under consideration? Is the source prejudiced? Is this expert usually, consistently accurate?
2. Does the quotation cited give a fair indication of the person’s real opinion, or was it “lifted from context” or otherwise distorted?
3. Is the opinion consistent with other assertions the authority has made?
4. What is the reason for the authority’s opinion? Opinions are based on reasoning and are subject to the same tests of reasoning that apply elsewhere.

In summary, the refutation of evidence is limited to the questions of correctness and the adequacy of the evidence. Merely matching sets of evidence does not result in good debating. Webelieve the most common fault of debate speakers on all levels isthat they are too often content to limit their refutation to a matching of evidence. For example, in a debate on the policy question of adopting a federal program of health insurance, the affirmative might argue that there is a need for compulsory health insurance and support this argument with evidence showing that in cities Aand B, a significant percentage of the aged receive inadequate medical care. The negative might respond with evidence that indicates that in cities C and D, the aged are well cared for and thus no need exists. This futile matching of evidence results in an unfounded leap from the evidence to the issue. Argument, or reasoning about the meaning of evidence, is omitted. If reasoning is omitted from debate and if analysis is lost in simply comparing different piles of note cards, then school debate is guilty of poor education, as charged by its critics. The proper relationship of the evidence would suggest that some problems do exist, and subsequent reasoning ought to be along the lines of finding out whether enough problems exist to constitute a need, whether the problems are inherent within the status quo, and ultimately, whether the affirmative provides an adequate solution to the problems.

REFUTATION

Refutation is the key element in debate and makes the whole process exciting by relating ideas and arguments from one team tothose of the other. It is challenging because it is more spontaneous than reading prepared speeches. Refutation is based on research, constructive development, and anticipation of potential attacks. It is the essence of debate and is difficult to master. A great deal of practice and attention to the basic principles outlined on this page will help guide you to becoming an effective debater through skilled refutation.

The Purpose of Refutation

In good debates, sound constructive arguments will be presented on both sides of the proposition. The debate is won by the speakers who most effectively refute the opposition and most ably defend their own case. Therefore, attention to the complex task ofrefutation and defense will add much to the debate speaker’s effectiveness. This chapter is based on the idea that the best preparation for refutation and defense is complete thoroughness at eachstep in the development of the debate case. In short, the most effective refutation is derived from a strong constructive case.

Indirect and Direct Refutation
Considerable confusion has centered on the word refutation because it is a broad term that is usually given a narrow application.The end, or purpose, of refutation is implicit in its definition:refutation is the attempt to demonstrate the error or inadequacyof the opponents’ case. It is clear that the end of refutation is todestroy; the means utilized may be indirect or direct. Because debate is a unified process of persuasion, you can see that refutation occurs indirectly in constructive arguments and directly as the responsibility of meeting particular shifts of argument from the negative back to the affirmative.

Indirect
Debaters refute through an indirect means when they use counter argument to attack the case of the opponent.

Counter argument is the demonstration of such a high degree of probability for your conclusions that the opposing view loses its probability and is rejected. For example, the affirmative need issue may be supportedby arguments A, B, and C. Negative refutation of the need issuemay be the development of arguments X, Y, and Z. Although therefutation for the argument is indirect, there is a direct clash onthe need issue. The use of counterargument is the strategy of the constructive negative case.

Direct
Direct refutation attacks the arguments of the opponent with no reference to the constructive development of an opposing view.Direct refutation, for example, attacks the affrmative need issueby demonstrating the error or inadequacy of arguments A, B, and C. The most effective refutation, as you can probably guess, is acombination of the two methods so that the strengths of the attack comes from both the destruction of the opponents’ views and the construction of an opposing view. To conceive refutation broadly, think of the affrmative case asthe refutation of the status quo and the constructive negative case as refutation of the affrmative. While you may think of a constructive case apart from the idea of refutation, remember that constructive argument develops largely from counter argument.

There is, however, a difference between the presentation of constructive arguments and the presentation of arguments intended to apply directly to the particular arguments of the opponent.The former is part of that broad look at refutation and may be developed in advance of the debate through your analysis of potential opposing arguments. Because the later task is done largely during the debate, it is one of the most complex the debate speaker encounters. It is the aspect of debating that is most often done poorly. In the process of debate, there is a confrontation between the affirmative view and the negative view. This confrontation may be easily viewed as that between opposing outlines. In this process, direct refutation is an important means of attack.

Using Refutation Effectively
We have just emphasized that refutation has both a constructiveand a destructive means, and that while the purpose of refutation may be accomplished by either, it is most effectively accomplished by using both means. Refutation and rebuttal, attack anddefense, are opposite sides of the same coin, and the methods used apply to both. Direct refutation demonstrates the error or inadequacy of the opponents’ case, while defense demonstratesthe error or inadequacy of the opponents’ refutation. In bothcases, the debate speaker’s method is the same — building the refutation and rebuttal on the analysis of the reasoning processand evaluation of evidence. Let us now focus on direct refutation,the destructive means of defeating the opponents’ case.

,I want you to still reconnect and get your teams in tact, so below is a write up on how to sustain your debate team and make them better...

*Approach to Training Session

1.1. Focused Training

Before the start of each training session, each Debater should decide on a particular area to focus on and pay it particularly close attention. For instance, a Debater could choose to pay more attention to controlling hand gestures, giving better points of information or rebutting stronger. This provides a direction and challenge for the training session. This should not, of course, mean that the other aspects of training should be neglected.



1.2. Warm Ups

In order to maximize the productivity of each training session, Debaters need to be “warmed up,” just as they will if they were footballers or dancers. Debaters usually do not spend most of the day speaking and orating. Thus, at the beginning of training sessions, they are usually “cold.” Their minds may not be processing as quickly as they could be and their vocal cords have been unused for an extended period. It is difficult, in particular, for the Debaters to speak fluidly and cogently after a cold start. Thus, quick warm up sessions at the start of training usually help to bring the Debaters to an optimal position to speak and debate properly. Examples of such warm ups may be found here .



1.3. Isolation Drills

When training for debate, it is important to have a balance of “isolation” drills and full practices. Isolation drills refer to sessions where debaters work on one particular component of debate in order to get it right and have it internalized. For instance, Debaters can focus purely on rebuttals for one training session and work to get the strong attacks developed within that session. In another session, they could work on voice modulation while yet another session could be dedicated entirely to gestures. Isolation drills are particularly useful for younger or inexperience debaters who are still working to acquire good fundamentals in debate. Examples of such drills may be found here .



Isolation drills offer 3 advantages:



a. Debaters are able to zoom in on potential areas of weakness which might have been less noticeable during a full match,



b. Debaters are able to fix the problem immediately after identification. This is often not possible in training sessions with full debates, when there is usually only enough time for the debaters to receive feedback but not ACT on the feedback, and



c. Debaters are able to internalize the desired traits through repetition. By focusing on short isolated drills, these Debaters are able to do the exercises over and over until these traits become second nature to them. This is especially useful for debate fundamentals such as signposting, structuring the argument well and speaking clearly and effectively.



1.4. Full matches

Debaters should balance isolated drills with the use of full debates within training sessions. In fact, full debates should become the norm for most training sessions as the Debaters grow in proficiency and prepare for entry into debate tournaments. With full matches, the Debaters will be able to adjust to the conditions of a competitive match as much as possible. This will allow them to develop the a set of SOPs for full matches. This also allows them to develop the stamina needed to keep sharp and alert for multiple debates being conducted in a short time frame.



1.5. 100% Training

In order to get the best outcome from each training session, Debaters should treat every training session as a seriously as they will a competitive match and behave accordingly. Taking a relaxed approach to training often means that any bad habits tend to creep in and fester. Although Debaters think that they can just “clean up” and adjust for competitive matches, it is often difficult to get everything right. Thus, emphasis should be put into having the debaters approach training with the mentality that they will be giving 100% for the training session.



1.6. “No Surprises”

Debaters should also approach training with the intent of making sure they will never be caught by surprise during a competitive match. They should thus familiarise themselves with the conditions of a competitive match during the training sessions. If the competitive debate requires the use of microphones, at least one training session should be conducted where Debaters are forced to handle AV equipment. For debates held in large halls and auditoriums, training sessions in small rooms will not be sufficient. The Debaters should find a similarly large venue to practise in. Some Debaters even conduct one or two training sessions in the attire that they will be wearing for the actual debate. This ensures that they will be completely comfortable on the floor for the actual debate and will be able to focus completely on the debate itself.



2. Changing It Up

2.1. Friendly Spars

Debaters should try to arrange for friendly matches with other teams and other institutions as often as possible and particularly before a tournament begins. These events force debaters to take the debating very seriously but does not carry the penalty of defeat in a real competition. These events often allow Debaters from different teams to interact in a non-competitive setting and develop friendships.



2.2. Judging Debate

The best way for Debaters to see what judges want from their speeches is to become judges themselves! By taking themselves out of the debate and viewing the match from the outside, they can see straight away what is expected from the Debaters and strive to do the same when they revert to being speakers.

Judging also provides an additional skill as it forces the Debaters to not just track the match but evaluate how it progressed. This will allow the speakers to be able to take the same evaluative analysis when doing their own debates, vastly improving their rebuttals and Reply Speeches. Even if it is not possible for Debaters to become judges at tournaments, they should take the opportunity to judge their peers or juniors during training sessions.



2.3. Teaching Debate

Another excellent way for Debaters to improve their debating is to teach debating. Even student debaters can find the opportunity to teach debate through workshops of debate clinics which are held in schools where debate programmes do not exist. These opportunities force the Debaters to have a strong conceptual understanding of debate and in imparting these lessons, reinforce them in their own minds. Furthermore, since they are now playing the role of mentors and instructors, their own debating during the teaching sessions will have to be exemplary.



2.4. International Debate Tours

Another excellent way to gain highly professional training sessions is to arrange for tours overseas to debate against teams and institutions from other nations. Since the Debaters will be representing their countries on these tours, the desire to perform well is strong and the matches will offer more intensity and productivity from a training perspective. These tour have the added benefit of offering Debaters the opportunity to pick up useful traits from completely different debating cultures and integrating them into their own repertoire.



2.5. Variation in Training

One danger inherent in all training is that the sessions become stale due to a lack of variation. Speakers come for training, go through a practice match, receive feedback and go home. In order to keep each training session fresh and interesting, it is necessary to add some variety and change to the training. The following changes can help to keep the debate sessions interesting.

a. Change of motions – This is already practiced to a large extent by most Debaters and involves the changing of motion topic areas (sports, arts, technology, military, etc) to changing motion types (policy, evaluative, big red ball).

b. Change of positions – This is a useful practice that Debaters should do more from time to time. In this, Debaters are asked to switch from their normal positions for one or two debates. For instance, someone who is nominally a third speaker could be asked to become a second or a first speaker. This practice is valuable as it makes the debaters appreciate the challenges associated with the other positions on the floor. Furthermore, cross-training means that the speakers will be able to switch positions without a great deal of fuss when a speaker is absent for any reason. Some debaters will actually have two main positions for debates, (i.e., Third Proposition Speaker but First Opposition Speaker).

c. Change of format – This change up is very useful as it provides the Debaters with exposure to different types of debating around the world. In particular, this change up allows the Debaters to pick up different skill sets which could be applied back to their main form of debate. For instance, a World Schools Debater will learn POI skills from the cross-fire sections Lincoln Douglas, argument extension skills from British Parliamentary and quick idea generation from American Parliamentary.



2.6. Preventing the Burn-Out

Even with the most enthusiastic of Debaters, repeated exposure to debate, as it is with most activities, will lead to burn-out. With constant training sessions and intense competitive matches, the strain may become too much for some Debaters, especially if they are heavily involved in other pursuits as well. Once there is a burn-out, the Debaters’ skills plateau and often regress, as they are unable to process and assimilate new debating skills and lack the motivation to do so in any case. This is a regrettable occurrence, especially in the case of young debaters, who face burn-out due to having too many tournaments to attend in conjunction with the pressure of academic work. This in turn means that they are unable to make further progress as Debaters when they reach pre-university or university levels.

The best solution to this is to reduce the intensity and length of training sessions and in extreme cases, cease them altogether. In order to keep maintain an interest in debate, these Debaters may also be put through training sessions where the emphasis will be on having fun and enjoying themselves. Fun and humour motions, such as “Sesame Street is an evil influence” could also be used instead.



3. Self-Training

The best Debaters in the world are those who are mildly (or wildly) obsessed with Debate and spend as much time as possible on their own time improving their skills. Debaters who attend allocated training sessions but fail to do anything in between will never be able to maximize their potential. Debaters should in fact be making imrprovements in between the training sessions. Thus, every Debater should practise debate even on their own. The following steps will help in accomplishing this:



3.1. Be Your Own Worst Critic

Debaters rarely improve if they believe that they are not making mistakes at all. This is why sometimes defeats are better learning tools than victories, as Debaters are often less critical of themselves after winning. Therefore, in training, Debaters should also take a critical view of themselves and try to assess their own performance critically after every debate. Even if they had won, the constant mantra should be “how can I do even better next time round?” rather than a self-congratulatory pat on the back.



3.2. Individual Practice Everyday

The self-evaluative process should be matched with daily practices so that any flaws could be corrected and bad habits eradicated. More importantly, the daily practices ensure that the lessons taught at each training session can be cross-applied and internalized quickly. Daily practices also mean that Debaters will rarely get rusty and will also be in peak condition. These practices may be as simple as a speech being read out to practise delivery or a quick brainstorming of ideas for a motion.



3.3. Teammates’ Feedback

Most Debaters will be able to call upon their teammates to provide honest feedback on what they are doing wrong and how they can improve. These teammates are in an excellent position to give feedback as they see the Debaters on a regular basis and are aware of their regular speaking and debating habits. Furthermore, they have an incentive to give useful and constructive feedback since the Debaters’ improvement will lead to the team’s improvement.



3.4. Video Tape/Mirror

Each and every debater should also use available technology in appraising oneself. Debaters can use video cameras or webcams to record their speeches and play back. This exercise is very useful as the camera captures mannerisms and traits that may not have been obvious to the Debaters until seen on the screen. In the absence of such equipment, even delivering a speech in front of a mirror gives useful information on how the Debaters will be viewed by the audience.