I think that rebuttal is not so significant in a 3rd speaker's speech. At first, this may seem so strange, but I think individual rebuttal harms the structure of your debate. It can often flow much better if, instead of having individual rebuttal points, you have rebuttal on the main clashes (or issues) of the debate. Further, I think that this analysis of key issues should take the entire speech time, not summarisation of key points. Once again, the individual arguments harms the structure of the speech. Sure, you may make reference to the individual points when talking about the failure of a few parents vs the majority of parents as an issue, but saying 'my first told you this and this and this. Then second told you this and this ... I think harms the whole case and detracts of the analysis of the issues. I think that this analysis of issues is so important because that is what the adjudicator will be judging you on. They don't say 'well, the aff had 4 points, neg only had 3, so the aff wins'. No, its on an issue breakdown. They say 'well the issues were whether this issue was more important than that issue'. Your points back up your issues, but they are the crux of the debate. I believe it is the 3rd role to bring those issues really into the debate, not to reiterate the points, but to prove why your points fulfil the issues, and ensure you win those issues which will in-turn, make you win the debate.
Ive got a debate on saturday and im third speaker for proposition.This video helped alot.Our topic is THS the removal of custody of parents of parents who are morbidly obese.Im on my High schools junior team and this is actually my first ever debate.Any tips?
