YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → First Speeches (PM/LO & Extension) - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 6

First Speeches (PM/LO & Extension) - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 6 — Transcript

by Manchester Debating Union · 9,984 words · 1,703 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00one so welcome to my topic which is for
0:03speeches so i'm assuming that everyone
0:05here is a first speaker
0:06or once strives to be the best first
0:09speaker in the entire world
0:10i'm not that so hopefully you get there
0:12so you can tell me how to get there
0:13so but over the years i've learned uh
0:16how to give decently good first speeches
0:19um and there's a lot that goes into it
0:21actually so hopefully this will teach
0:22you something that you knew
0:24uh that you didn't know uh that you can
0:26now apply
0:27in future speeches so first i want to
0:29talk about the strategy of a first
0:31speaker
0:31when you're opening versus closing um so
0:34typically how you approach
0:35prep time is very similar but there are
0:37a few notable differences
0:38if i could just summarize what the key
0:40difference of of a first speaker
0:42uh when they're in opening versus
0:44closing is it'd be in opening
0:46you'd ask the question or try to answer
0:48the question what is this debate about
0:50and in closing
0:51you you come up as the extension speaker
0:53and you just go no but really really
0:55what is this debate about
0:56um and so when you're in opening in book
1:00opening and closing actually you try to
1:01forecast the debate and what i mean by
1:03forecast
1:04the debate just like a weather forecast
1:06you try to understand
1:07what the debate is going to look like um
1:10and i think this is something that loads
1:11of people actually don't understand
1:12about prep time
1:13and what they get really wrong about
1:14loads of prep times is that they launch
1:16straight into arguments
1:17and they don't just try to picture like
1:20as a judge
1:21if you are seeing this motion release
1:23and you're just sitting around for 15
1:24minutes
1:25uh like kind of predicting what you're
1:28going to be seeing
1:28in the debate um that's the position you
1:31should also take as a speaker so
1:32in the first two minutes uh you should
1:35almost
1:36remove yourself from the role as a
1:38speaker and just try to forecast what
1:39this debate is going to be about
1:41what kind of arguments are going to be
1:43are going to look like
1:44where are the speakers likely going to
1:46struggle with so like if they're caught
1:47into dead box where it's just a
1:49assertion versus counter assertion what
1:51kind of questions do they really need to
1:52answer in this debate
1:54so when you're in opening it's really
1:55critical for you to forecast the debate
1:57so what main questions are going to
1:58arise and how do you best answer them
2:01uh when you're in closing you also try
2:03to forecast the debate
2:04um but you kind of try to picture the
2:08the first four speakers that that go so
2:10you focus on you know
2:12how like what mistakes are these first
2:14four speakers likely going to make a top
2:16half
2:17and what clashes are they going to find
2:19really difficult to resolve
2:20um what how they going to fall into the
2:23trap of focusing
2:24on really obvious argumentation and
2:26neglecting really niche and impactful
2:28issues
2:29and so you kind of try to forecast not
2:31only the debate as a whole but also just
2:33like
2:33how the first four speakers are likely
2:35going to respond to seeing the motion
2:37and what lines of argumentation they're
2:39likely going to run what mistakes are
2:41they likely going to make
2:42and that's when extension speakers can
2:44pick not just new arguments
2:45but winning arguments that position
2:47position them well in the debate
2:49so um i want to do a couple exercises
2:52first um
2:53just to get everyone warmed up so this
2:55is an exercise about forecasting the
2:56debate
2:57here's a classic motion this has regrets
2:59the social preference for optimism
3:01and positivity um and so let's forecast
3:04a debate and what i mean by forecast
3:06debate
3:06don't just tell me what arguments people
3:09are likely going to bring up
3:10um tell me what the clashes are so
3:14when one side says an argument and the
3:16other side says in
3:17counter argument what is the clash
3:19really about um
3:20so i'm gonna give you a hint so for
3:23example one side is gonna say
3:24obviously ah you know optimism
3:27positivity
3:28is it makes you do all these great
3:30things like work harder and strive
3:31harder and then the other side is going
3:33to say no
3:34you know people are going to make you be
3:35happy uh even
3:37when you're sad and you have legitimate
3:39reasons to be sad so it's going to be on
3:41healthy levels of positivity
3:42the other side is just going to come to
3:44claim uh no but it's going to be healthy
3:46levels of positivity
3:47so what's the clash here uh does anyone
3:50want to like maybe unmute themselves say
3:52it or just maybe put in chat
3:54is that on which side you're better able
3:57to self-actualize
3:59um what side are you better able to
4:01self-actualize
4:02not quite not quite i think um so if one
4:06side says
4:07uh is you're going to feel just the
4:09right amount of positivity so
4:10you're going to feel positive when it's
4:12good for you to self-actualize so i
4:13think you're hitting the right note here
4:15so you're going to you know
4:17feel the social preference like the
4:19social preference for optimism
4:20positivity
4:21it's going to motivate you to work
4:23harder and to be
4:24and to make good decisions for yourself
4:26and the other side says no the social
4:27preference for optimism and positivity
4:29is likely going to be too extreme you're
4:31going to force people to be happy
4:33when they have legitimate reasons to be
4:35sad for example um so what what is the
4:37question that's really been
4:38being hit on here so there's something
4:40in the chat let and see it how to deal
4:42with sad things that happened to you
4:44a little bit a little bit any any other
4:47ideas
4:52so i think this kind of conveys this is
4:55a really
4:56un like like overlooked skill that i
4:59think loads of people only learn after
5:00doing
5:01debate for lots of years um but luckily
5:03i'm teaching you about it now so you can
5:05skip
5:06all that so forecasting debate is not
5:08just about like um
5:10questions but really just like trying to
5:12understand what people actually disagree
5:14about so when one side says like oh
5:16optimism positivity it's just going to
5:19be the right amount you're still going
5:20to be
5:21able to feel sad when you need to feel
5:23sad but you know you're going it's going
5:24to be
5:25able to help you work really hard in
5:26situations that are good for you and the
5:28other side says no
5:29like the likely like the likely scenario
5:31is that this level of positivity is
5:33going to be too high
5:34so what these people actually disagree
5:35about is whether or not
5:37there will be a toxic level of
5:39positivity because one side says
5:40you know kind of we're going to be in
5:42the goldilocks zone where the
5:44amount of optimism and positivity is
5:46just going to be just right such that
5:48people
5:48are able to use it uh when it's good for
5:50them and able to still feel sad when
5:52they need to
5:53um the other side says no likely the
5:55porridge is going to be too hot too cold
5:57um and you're going to have a toxic
5:59level of positivity so people
6:01don't feel okay to be sad uh people uh
6:04are told just to be happy when they have
6:05legitimate reasons to be sad
6:07um and so what they're actually
6:08disagreeing upon about is
6:10whether or not there'll be a toxic level
6:12of positivity so that's what i mean by
6:14forecasting a debate
6:15um not only thinking about what
6:16arguments people are bringing up
6:18but it's trying to understand what they
6:21actually disagree about
6:22um and this is the fundamental question
6:24they disagree about whether or not there
6:25will be a toxic or a positivity
6:27and uh you know like another thing that
6:29might be able to be seen in this debate
6:31that you can forecast
6:32is you know is it preferable than the
6:35counter factual you know opposition says
6:36like look
6:37maybe optimism and positivity is not
6:40great uh but at least it is better than
6:44the social preference for negativity and
6:46nihilism you know um and
6:48you know like uh government is obviously
6:51going to come up and say like obviously
6:52if he didn't have optimism and
6:54positivity
6:55but we would all default to a rational
6:58neutral state where we can see
6:59situations that are happy for what they
7:01are and situations that are bad for what
7:03they are without any like
7:05natural inclination to see like see the
7:07silver lining when there isn't
7:09um so again like this is just going to
7:12like you can predict that
7:13bad t like bad teams but like some teams
7:16may fall into the trap of just asserting
7:18counterfactuals so one side said
7:20says like the counterfactual is just
7:22negativity all the time
7:23but the other side says actually you're
7:25going to be a very rational minded
7:27individual
7:28who doesn't feel negative and they don't
7:31need to be
7:31etc and so this is another
7:35uh clash you can or another clash that
7:37you can predict which is like is it
7:38preferable to the counterfactual
7:40and what will this counterfactual
7:42actually look like and so now that you
7:44know what people are actually
7:46disagreeing upon
7:47after thinking about all the arguments
7:48that people bring up um
7:50you can just start thinking about how to
7:52resolve them
7:53so how do we resolve this first bullet
7:55point will this be a
7:57toxic level of positivity so you can
7:59just say like okay
8:01um beyond just asserting the that
8:03there'll be too much positivity or
8:05there'll be
8:06just the right amount of positivity you
8:08can give structural reasons or give a
8:10lot of analysis
8:11about why it's likely going to be a
8:13goldilocks amount or why it's going to
8:15be
8:15too extreme um so if for example i was
8:18on
8:19uh like on like on government and i was
8:22saying like
8:23likely the level of positivity is going
8:25to be
8:26toxically high that even sad people who
8:28have legitimate reasons to be sad are
8:30going to be forced to be happy
8:31i can ask questions like okay so why
8:33well people who had the incentive
8:36like or had the most ability to for
8:38example communicate the social
8:39preference
8:40through things like media to things like
8:42uh you know
8:44politics etc are those who are
8:46privileged because you know they
8:47are they have more media era time you
8:49know social media influencers tend to be
8:51people come from privileged backgrounds
8:52as well as people in
8:54generic mainstream media the people who
8:56tend to have the most political capital
8:58tends to be those who are privileged
9:00uh and because of that um it's the
9:02privileged people who are going to be
9:04dictating the social preference of
9:06optimism and positivity
9:08and the way that it's going to be
9:09communicated you know it's going to be
9:11communicated in political norms so
9:13the idea that yes you may have
9:15challenges in your life
9:17but you can achieve social mobility if
9:19you just work really hard so maybe
9:21it's it looks like the american dream
9:23which is a political norm
9:24or it could look like a social narrative
9:26right which is like you know
9:28whenever someone's sad you're told to
9:30tell them you know
9:31you can do things that make yourself
9:32happy you know always look for the
9:34silver lining
9:35and in media right when you just glorify
9:37things like you know
9:39uh people who are really happy and
9:41positive all the time
9:42rather than people who show a mixture of
9:44emotions so that
9:45lots of different ways that this is
9:46communicated and transmitted and
9:48typically
9:49communicated and transmitted by those
9:50who are privileged um
9:52and so therefore you can say like okay
9:54um so
9:55these people who are privileged who are
9:57for example social media influencers or
9:59politicians
10:00um they've never really had to go
10:02through really terrible structural
10:03barriers like racism or
10:05sexism etc and because of this um
10:08they think it's a lot easier to overcome
10:11challenges than it actually is
10:14so they tend to trivialize the problems
10:16of people who maybe come from this
10:18privileged background
10:19who have very legitimate reasons to feel
10:21hopeless or to feel sad
10:23and the way that they're like they like
10:26because they think that all
10:27like you know all they needed was
10:29optimism and positivity that all
10:31what other people need is also optimism
10:33positivity so when politicians for
10:34example
10:35you know are addressing things like
10:37social inequality likely going to try to
10:39address it as a problem of individual
10:41character rather than structural
10:43barriers because they've just
10:44never had to interact or deal with the
10:46structural barriers before
10:48um so like this is how you can
10:50structurally prove
10:52this will be a toxic level of positivity
10:54and then you can impact it by saying
10:55like look
10:56therefore people who are sad just are
10:58told to just [ __ ] up and deal with
11:00don't deal with it you know minorities
11:03who complain about structural barriers
11:05um and feel hopeless as a result i just
11:07told to be happy and look on the
11:08positive side
11:09um and so and so that's how you can
11:11structurally prove your claims
11:13and then you can accrue all the impacts
11:15um rather than just asserting
11:17uh people will always tell depressed
11:20people to just
11:21be happy and look on the bright side you
11:22need to actually prove that
11:24um and you know similarly you can do the
11:26same kind of
11:27analysis on the second question or the
11:29second bullet point is it preferable
11:31to the counter factual so what will the
11:32counter factual be
11:34you can say like okay so this the same
11:36way that we looked at like
11:38who creates this positive narrative who
11:41uh trans how's this optimistic narrative
11:44communicator transmitted and how did
11:46different groups interpret or consume
11:47this narrative
11:48you can do this with all the other
11:49different counter factuals as well you
11:51can
11:51be like okay so who creates
11:55like is there an incentive for
11:56privileged groups to create maybe a
11:58culture of negativity
12:00on the counter factual or is there an
12:02incentive to create you know like
12:04rational neutral
12:05counter narrative if the one if the
12:08narrative for
12:09optimism positivity doesn't exist so the
12:12same
12:12a similar analysis can also be done on
12:14the second bullet point
12:15so i know that i just said a lot and
12:18people it might be really confusing to
12:19people so don't be afraid to ask
12:20questions
12:21uh so does are there any questions about
12:23how you forecast so far
12:25because right now maybe just seems like
12:26black magic that i can just like
12:28predict predict what the clashes are um
12:32um does anyone want me to walk a little
12:34bit more clearly through how you can
12:36forecast these classes once you see the
12:38motion because
12:39let's be real you only have 15 minutes a
12:41lot of people um
12:43struggle to like to think that forehead
12:45basically an emotion
12:47uh any any questions so far about
12:49broadcasting we'll do another exercise
12:50for people a little bit more comfortable
12:52with it
12:57okay we'll do the next exercise and then
12:58i'll give another opportunity for people
13:00to clarify
13:01forecasting if they need to so
13:05exercise two um so this is another um
13:09uh motion uh and i think this one is a
13:13slightly easier
13:14so hopefully more people can join in so
13:16this house believes that the black lives
13:18matters movement
13:18should campaign for the inclusion of
13:20more african-american
13:22police officers instead of the defunding
13:24of the police force
13:26so you know blm should say hey
13:29include more black police officers in
13:31your police force rather than saying
13:32defund the police and
13:34reallocate that funding to say you know
13:36mental health services
13:39social development programs etc
13:42so what do people think the clashes are
13:45going to be about
13:46so let's go let's go a little bit more
13:48slowly through this so
13:49what arguments do you think oh gee or
13:52like cg are likely going to bring up so
13:54like what's the most obvious argument
13:58this will make the police less terrible
14:00and racist yeah this will make the
14:02police less terrible and racist
14:04um so presumably both options would also
14:08make the police less terrible in races i
14:10think maybe og can say like
14:11this is more a more effective policy
14:16probably also a lot easier to achieve
14:18because defunding the police is
14:19something it's very hard to campaign for
14:21versus including african-americans and
14:24the police forces less contentions even
14:26like for racist people or like
14:28white people exactly so the main
14:31probably gov line is saying like look
14:34this is a mechanism that works so it
14:35makes the police less racist
14:37yeah sure it's not as as efficacious as
14:40defunding the police force
14:41but we don't live in an ideal world
14:43likely
14:44racist america is not going to accept
14:46the defunding of the
14:47beloved police forces and so we just
14:49have to you know
14:51like take what we can get which is
14:53probably the inclusion of black police
14:54officers
14:55we shouldn't waste our precious
14:57resources on campaigning for an
14:58idealistic solution that's just never
15:00ever going to be passed
15:01so we'd rather have a subpar solution
15:03actually be passed
15:04rather than having uh no solution be
15:07passed and just
15:08saying that you know you should adopt
15:10this utopian
15:12solution that's never going to be
15:13accepted um so that's typically what gov
15:15is going to say now author's probably
15:17going to say the opposite right
15:18um so like now what what is op going to
15:24say
15:27any any ideas this is like a prompt any
15:29ideas for what opposition is going to
15:30say
15:32a lot of times well it's kind of
15:34painting
15:35um african-american people with like one
15:38brush
15:38like a lot of times these police
15:40officers may be from more privileged
15:42backgrounds they may come in from other
15:43areas they may be unfamiliar with the
15:44area they're working in
15:46and they might also suffer from like
15:48internalized racism
15:50and it doesn't necessarily mean that
15:52it's going to be effective just because
15:53of the same race
15:54exactly so probably uh opposition would
15:57be a little bit more mean than what you
15:59just said they'll just say like look
16:00it's precisely for all the reasons like
16:02african american police officers like
16:03they maybe come from more privileged
16:04backgrounds
16:05uh probably uh maybe even once they're
16:09amongst white cops
16:10and you know they have to work with
16:11white cops maybe they want to show up
16:13for the white cop so they like kind of
16:14like say they almost want to prove that
16:16oh just because i'm a black police
16:18officer don't think i'll be soft on
16:20you know black communities and so they
16:21almost like performatively
16:23are more extreme than even the white
16:25cops because they just want to prove
16:26they're not a token minority
16:28um so you know like a lot of these
16:30challenges i just said
16:31are essentially proving why there's like
16:35including more african police officers
16:36is going to be
16:37like zero percent effective um a really
16:40good opposition can probably prove that
16:42it's going to be actively harmful
16:44so their mean their main push is going
16:46to be look
16:47sure this inclusion of african american
16:50police officers
16:51is easier to achieve uh but you're going
16:54to be
16:54at best achieving nothing and at worst
16:58because like creating more problems than
17:01you
17:01than you originally started with so we'd
17:04rather
17:05put all of our resources into def
17:07getting defunding of the police force
17:09because this is the only solution that
17:10would actually solve the problems
17:12and actually achieve the goals of black
17:14lives matters um and then
17:15they may even give like arguments about
17:17like oh yeah actually you know people
17:19maybe
17:19kind of want to defund the police force
17:21it's not that impossible
17:22you know and so you can see here that
17:24that is almost just like this
17:26up equal and opposite action and
17:29reaction
17:30um government says like um we'd rather
17:32have an easy to pass
17:34policy um that is maybe subpar
17:37but actually would be passed um and
17:39opposition says like look
17:41we'd rather have like we'd rather put
17:44all the
17:44chips in to like embed it on you know
17:47red and just say that look we would
17:49rather have this policy
17:51or nothing versus an actively
17:54detrimental one
17:55even if it's easier to pass um so
17:58forecasting a debate so from here
18:02you can see that the clashes that are
18:04being talked about is you know
18:05which policy will actually be passed um
18:09so you know government's going to be
18:11accusing opposition that
18:12they will never ever be able to defund
18:15the police force no matter how hard they
18:16try
18:17so it's just a futile attempt to even
18:18try in the first place um
18:20and then opposition is going to be
18:22attacking proposition
18:24by saying like look you know your policy
18:26is not actually intrinsically effective
18:28in fact it's intrinsically harmful
18:30sometimes and so because of this
18:32like you're doing something that can be
18:34actively harmful or at the very least
18:37wasting a bunch of resources into a not
18:39effective policy
18:40um and so how do you resolve these
18:43questions then well you can see that
18:45because
18:45the attacks on each side are slightly
18:47different um the burden on each team is
18:50slightly different so you can forecast
18:51like
18:52if you're an op speaker like like you're
18:54an lo speaker like leader of opposition
18:56you can say like okay the big personal
18:58gov is gonna be
19:00about the fact that we can't actually
19:02pass it
19:03the defunding of a police force as a
19:05policy so
19:06i need to structurally justify why we
19:09could actually
19:10really likely pass like defund the
19:12police force
19:13um if we try um so maybe it's slightly
19:15harder but it's not impossible
19:17and what we should do is put all our
19:19chips into that so you can
19:20give structural reasons as to you know
19:22the social context now
19:24so just be like look you know america
19:26isn't as opposed to radical solutions as
19:28they were before
19:30loads of people suffer from the police
19:32forces and understand
19:33how terrible it is and why there's a
19:35need for a bigger solution
19:37um so for example like you obviously
19:39black communities know that there's a
19:40problem but also latin american
19:42communities
19:42often even poor white communities
19:44understand that there is a general over
19:46policing
19:47in in poor areas um and you can
19:50sell them on the idea that look this
19:52money isn't just going to disappear
19:53it's going to go into things that
19:55benefit you as well for example
19:57social development programs so that even
19:59go to white neighborhoods
20:00um it's going to go into mental health
20:02services that
20:03are also good for white neighborhoods
20:06and
20:06it's also going to go into like for
20:08example um drug and rehabilitation
20:10programs that
20:11everyone benefits from um so actually
20:15people this is not that big a radical a
20:18policy and loads of people
20:20even moderates can see the benefits of
20:22defunding the police force
20:23um so that's why right now in the social
20:25context where you see you know police
20:28officers
20:28um videos of them being unnecessarily
20:31brutal
20:32even maybe like a racist goes maybe
20:34that's a bit too much
20:36we probably have a problem here so even
20:38like because
20:39it is in this specific moment that
20:41people are finally realizing
20:43how severe police brutality is even to
20:45non-black communities
20:47and people can see that there are
20:49mutually like there are
20:50benefits that benefit everyone not just
20:52black communities in the defunding of
20:53the police force
20:54that's why we can get it passed and so
20:56like you like
20:57because you can forecast this you know
20:59what you have to defend
21:00and all of your constructive
21:02argumentation in the first speaker can
21:04go towards that if you're an elder
21:05speaker
21:06um and then and then you can just like
21:08give a couple like
21:10like a smaller amount of your case going
21:12into saying like
21:13okay obviously the defunding of the
21:15police force
21:16is a better solution than including more
21:19african-american police officers
21:21for xyz reasons this is where you can
21:22say like uh african-american police
21:24officers
21:24maybe are privileged maybe they double
21:26down because they don't
21:28they don't want to be seen as a token
21:29minority etc etc
21:31um and so knowing where the attacks are
21:34going to be
21:34you can preempt that and instantly
21:36resolve and answer the questions
21:38uh that even maybe like other speakers
21:40don't even know are being asked
21:42um so again if you're on gov um you know
21:44that the big attack on you is going to
21:46be on the afficaciousness point
21:48so um so but as george said you can talk
21:51a lot about how
21:52black police officers are actually able
21:54to make positive changes and these
21:55positive changes are actually quite
21:56significant so
21:57it's almost comparable to defunding the
21:59police force um
22:00so you can say like look black police
22:02forces can
22:04you know more black police officers when
22:06you're in a police force
22:07um just likely that you have more of a
22:09collective ability to change something
22:11the problem now is that there are maybe
22:13one or two black officers
22:15fighting for for example like the
22:18demilitarization
22:19of policing in black neighborhoods but
22:21they're alone and they're typically
22:23singled out
22:24for being progressive or being too
22:25radical for the face-off
22:27for the police force what you need is
22:28safety in numbers so
22:30the fact that you just have more black
22:32officers in there people are just more
22:33confident in proposing policies
22:35like demilitarization that benefits
22:37black neighborhoods uh because you're
22:38not afraid of being ostracized from the
22:40police force
22:41furthermore probably a higher higher
22:43likelihood that these people
22:44you know black people can make it to
22:46higher ranks in the police force where
22:48they can actually like
22:49decide policing so for example if you're
22:51the police chief
22:52i don't know how policing works police
22:53chief police general not too sure
22:55but you know the head honcho maybe has
22:58more likelihood of being black
23:00and so because of that can actively
23:02inform policies about policing
23:03and you can give reasons as to why this
23:05black officer would want to help black
23:07communities
23:08um so yeah uh so
23:12because of that you know and then of
23:13course you can do all the other
23:14arguments that you that we talked about
23:15before like ah
23:17you know pointing the finger at
23:18opposition saying like you know
23:20they are they will never get their
23:22policy paths for xyz reasons because you
23:24know america is incredibly racist
23:26um and you know defunding the police
23:28force just sounds like
23:30you're going to cut money from an
23:32integral service and
23:34you don't know where this money is is
23:36going to elsewhere so it just sounds
23:38like you're
23:38allowing crime to increase um and
23:41because of that people are not going to
23:42support it so this is where you can like
23:44point the
23:44do like both a pre almost a preemptive
23:47defense
23:48as well as a offense to your opposition
23:51um so this is how you create that really
23:53nuanced first speaker speech
23:55um so hopefully people understand what
23:57forecasting is about any questions
23:59the official term of the police of a
24:02police chief is big cheese all right big
24:04cheese but anyway
24:05so any questions about um
24:09like how to do forecasting properly
24:13i really really recommend if you have a
24:14problem with forecasting a debate like
24:16you just don't know what the clashes are
24:19going to be about all you know is just
24:20like
24:20what generic arguments you don't
24:22actually know what people are
24:23disagreeing about
24:24um i really recommend that you judge
24:26more because as the more like
24:29the more you judge the more debates you
24:31see
24:32um and so you just see like what you
24:34know one side
24:36like asserting something and the other
24:38side just counted counter-asserting it
24:40and then you like as a judge you just
24:43learn how to be really frustrated and
24:44just
24:45think ah i just really wish you know
24:48government just told me
24:49why that policy is actually effective um
24:52or i just wish the opposition actually
24:53told me why that policy is going to be
24:55passed you know
24:56so like um as a judge you just become
24:58more used to
24:59understanding what teams needed to prove
25:02in order to win
25:03um and so are better predicting clashes
25:05another thing you can do
25:06is just like like have like a motion per
25:10day
25:10motion every three days um where you
25:12just look at it and you just like think
25:14about it
25:14like kind of like low intensely like
25:16with low intensity throughout the day
25:18just kind of thinking about like uh
25:20like what do i think government's gonna
25:21say what i think opposition is gonna say
25:23what does government need to do to come
25:25back from that attack by opposition you
25:27know stuff like that
25:28um and so just by thinking just about
25:31motions you
25:32you just make your mind a lot faster at
25:34forecasting the motions
25:35because i'm a [ __ ] dino i can base
25:38i can look at emotion and basically
25:40forecast it within the two minutes of
25:41silence
25:42that me and my partner have and that's
25:44just because
25:45the pathways in my brain are just fast
25:49now
25:49um and it's really just about sheer
25:51practice so i really recommend that just
25:53like
25:53it doesn't need to be a whole sit down
25:55writing out a case
25:56it can just be thinking about emotion or
25:59just looking at it and trying to
26:00understand what people are going to be
26:02probably saying in it um yeah
26:05so finally next step so how do you do
26:08opening half
26:09after we've talked about the forecasting
26:11so of course um
26:13you're responsible for painting a
26:15picture of the debate so
26:16obviously try to answer all the
26:19questions you forecasted so
26:20you know if it's a if it's just like oh
26:23like the social optimism one
26:25whether or not like there will be a
26:26toxic level of positivity of course
26:30think about how you answer those
26:31questions and come up with the
26:32structural analysis to answer those
26:34forecasts
26:35um the next thing that you need to do is
26:37that typically especially if you're lo
26:39or pm you're responsible for painting a
26:41picture of the debate
26:42so clarifying okay what are we actually
26:44talking about what key issues do we need
26:46to solve
26:46so you have to characterize what the
26:48current issue is in status quo
26:49for example like you know if if it's
26:52something
26:53about like the black lives matters
26:54movement and policing obviously
26:56it's about like okay so why is police
26:58brutality a problem and why is maybe
27:00urban crime a problem um so for example
27:03urban crime is a problem because
27:05um a lot of the you know social networks
27:08are needed for prosperity
27:10are gone so people through the crime um
27:12so what we really need is like
27:13more drug and we have the rehabilitation
27:16programs what we need
27:18is uh you know like you know social
27:21development programs or inner cities
27:22so because of this we could actually
27:24solve crime um
27:26and police brutality is only a problem
27:28because
27:29crime right now exists and so loads of
27:32officers because
27:33there is just a higher level of crime in
27:35more inner city areas or urban areas
27:37they just become subconsciously more
27:39racist over time
27:41because black criminals or black
27:43neighborhoods are the only thing they
27:44police
27:45so if we just defund the police force
27:47and actually address the core issues or
27:48the
27:49underlying roots of crime the entire the
27:52entire thing will
27:53solve itself um so like by character by
27:55characterizing the current issues
27:57and why they arise you can already think
27:59of how this
28:00will allow you to you know make
28:02arguments and stuff um
28:03so like understanding you know why urban
28:05crime arises to why police brutality
28:07arises
28:08then you can characterize the main
28:09actors in the debate um
28:11so here this would have been really
28:13helpful for example like the social
28:15preference for optimism one because like
28:17this is just like
28:18a side note the biggest problem that
28:21people have in narrative or fluffy type
28:23motions like
28:24a social preference for optimism um and
28:27positivity
28:28is that they just see everyone as like
28:30faceless individuals they can tap into
28:32like
28:33this abstract narrative and understand
28:36it telepathically you know like
28:38narratives
28:38and social preferences are always
28:40communicated on the ground
28:42by people and very different people so
28:44you can think about oh one of the main
28:46actors in debate
28:47who's setting you know this social
28:49preference who's defining
28:50you know positivity and optimism who's
28:52consuming it who's being told to be
28:54positive and optimistic
28:56um and why do their interests differ um
28:58so you can be like yeah it's mostly just
29:00like really privileged people
29:02who find it really easy to be happy um
29:04and pat themselves on the back for
29:06overcoming a single challenge
29:07that tell really underprivileged people
29:09that they should just
29:10pull themselves up by their bootstraps
29:12and just look on the bright side
29:13um so yeah so by thinking about the main
29:16actors debate you can stop thinking
29:17about okay
29:18so who who gets to set this narrative
29:20how is this narrative consumed
29:22you know by individuals on the ground so
29:25after you thought about you know
29:27main actors and current issues you can
29:29start setting the magic of the debate
29:30so what i mean by setting the metric of
29:32debate is
29:34preemptive weighing so weighing as most
29:37of you will know
29:38is just telling me what impacts are
29:39important in the debate
29:41um so just like oh you should care about
29:42our impacts because of xyz
29:44i really recommend from pm or elbow just
29:46being like look
29:47judge how should you ju like how should
29:50you judge this debate by
29:51what impact should you care about and
29:53after painting me the picture here are
29:55the current issues
29:56um you could be like okay so therefore
29:58the goals of blm
30:00um is not just to wrap it like to
30:02increase representation
30:03uh in the police force but to solve
30:06urban crime
30:07and to like that you know black people
30:09face and to solve the police brutality
30:11that follows it
30:13um so that that way i can say like okay
30:15so the core
30:16issues is urban how to solve urban crime
30:19and
30:19that inherently already tips the scale
30:21in my head as a judge because if
30:24you know if proposition doesn't solve
30:25urban crime and all they can do is
30:27increase representation
30:28you know and a representation of black
30:31police officers
30:32um that they're already losing in my
30:34head
30:35so preemptively you can also out frame
30:37all other impacts and debate by saying
30:39like look
30:39what impact should you care about in
30:40this debate you can outflame all other
30:42impacts that closing may bring in
30:44um but yeah so don't be too clever
30:48uh while i'm saying i i'm probably
30:49saying like really convoluted things
30:51to you but hopefully it's not too
30:53convoluted or convoluted and hopefully i
30:55don't contradict myself when i say don't
30:57be too clever
30:58in opening half like don't lots of
31:00people try to be like
31:02two big brain galaxy brain and opening
31:04half and they just leave lots of like
31:06really obvious arguments so literally if
31:08you're an opening half
31:10the best way for you to win is to do all
31:12the obvious things
31:14really really well like maybe like this
31:16won't be like the
31:17biggest like galaxy brain case that
31:20you'll tell your friends about
31:21in the future but it'll be a really well
31:24rob
31:25well constructed robust case that will
31:26get you at least a second in the debate
31:28so take all the obvious lines of
31:31argumentation so when we did that blm
31:33motion
31:34this one just like the ones that we
31:36thought of just like you know
31:38um whether or not this policy is going
31:40to be efficacious
31:41who is able to actually pass a policy on
31:44either side of the house
31:45take all of those arguments um and run
31:48it really clearly and cleanly
31:49um and this is where opening half is the
31:52best place for you to matter them
31:53i'm trying to give as many layers of
31:55analysis as possible
31:56so if you were here in the previous
31:59weeks i talked about linear flow
32:00and how to uh tier your analysis so
32:04ie that is give me lots of
32:07reasons why your impacts are achieved so
32:10like
32:10if it's about why you know
32:14including more african-american police
32:16on the police force
32:18would help solve police brutality don't
32:20just tell me ah it's because
32:22you know police officers will try to
32:25pass really preferable like like good
32:28policing policies once they're big
32:30cheese
32:31um so that's one that's one reason as to
32:33why maybe police brutality gets better
32:35give me more so give me this like
32:37ah it's also because you know because
32:39they have safety in numbers
32:40they can also affect policing practices
32:42on the ground you know they feel more
32:44comfortable
32:44calling out racist police officers and
32:46reporting them because they know that
32:47their friends will back them
32:48up um you know it's also things like you
32:51know
32:53uh i don't know i can't think of any
32:54right now but you can give like multiple
32:56reasons
32:56why the generic impact of less police
32:59brutalities achieved
33:00so maybe you know opposition and closing
33:03opposition can take out a few but they
33:05probably will not take out
33:07like all of them um and so because of
33:09this you're left standing at the end of
33:11the debate
33:11um so opening half is the prime position
33:14to just matter dump it this way so just
33:16give as many reasons as possible
33:17about why your impacts are achieved and
33:19to analyze them super rigorously
33:21um it's because like that's just like
33:23even if you're in lo and you have the pm
33:25to respond to
33:26that's just not that much material
33:27compared to for example if you're an
33:29extension speaker
33:30we have four previous speakers before
33:32you that you need to deal with
33:33um so the opening half is a prime
33:35material for you to just
33:36dump really clean really rigorous robust
33:38cases
33:39um and if you just do it really well
33:41you'll place quite high in the debate
33:43cool how do you do closing half then um
33:46so just like point out like
33:49so that like there are two main ways
33:52that you can
33:53win is closing half and you know you
33:55most people typically know about this so
33:57it's
33:57either the analysis extension or it's
34:00the new argument extension
34:02so the analysis extension is where you
34:04point out the absences of critical
34:06analysis in the top half
34:08and you tell them how you fill in those
34:10gaps and so this is where forecasting is
34:13really
34:13really really helpful uh because if you
34:16know like you know
34:17two top half teams you know they're
34:19going to just like be oh
34:20one side is just like if we're going
34:22back to the example of
34:23the social preference for optimism and
34:26positivity
34:27if you can kind of predict hmm i bet
34:30o.g is just going to say there will be
34:32too much posit there's too much
34:34positivity um and opposition just says
34:37no that's just the right amount of
34:38positivity um
34:41like the judge has no idea which side is
34:43right who
34:44like knows he like he doesn't he or she
34:46doesn't know
34:47who actually is correct about the level
34:49of of toxic positivity
34:51um so i as extension i bet if i give
34:54lots of analysis about why it's
34:56going to be one over the other like it's
34:58going to be too high or
34:59just the right amount i'm going to win
35:01this debate so this is where they
35:03like you can predict that there's very
35:05easy traps or deadlocks that opening
35:07half is going to chop themselves in
35:09and then you can easily just like run
35:11all the analysis
35:13uh needed for like for for you to
35:15resolve that deadlock as a judge
35:17um so this is where forecasting is super
35:19important of course like don't just rely
35:20on the analysis extension alone
35:22if you're in a really good room and they
35:24just don't have a deadlock like
35:26everyone's actually
35:27done the things they were supposed to um
35:29i have like a new argument
35:31just in case um so the critical analysis
35:34i would say is the
35:35it's a more preferable kind of extension
35:37because it's just really easy to see
35:39where it fits into the debate and why
35:40it means that one side wins over the
35:42other um
35:44but in case that doesn't happen or in
35:46case like
35:47top half just [ __ ] up and you just talk
35:49about your relevant stuff you can out
35:50frame top half with a new argument
35:52so this is the second type of extension
35:54which is new argument extension
35:56this is when you re-characterize the
35:58debate
35:59to be about like more important issues
36:02or to be about more important
36:04stakeholders in the debate
36:05um so what is critical is that you
36:07justify this reframing
36:09so a really good example this is like a
36:11really cliche example but this house
36:13would legalize all drugs
36:14let's say top half og just says um
36:17we'll legalize drugs because this is
36:19about rehabilitation
36:20we want people if in case they are ever
36:23attempted to do drugs to feel like they
36:25have
36:26support for it right now it's
36:27criminalized they're too afraid of being
36:28you know
36:29caught by the police and put in jail uh
36:31and what they really
36:32need is like mental health services so
36:34rehabilitation programs
36:36gonna be much more effective if you
36:37decriminalize um
36:39you know drugs um opposition is gonna
36:41say no but this is this means more
36:43people are gonna do drugs
36:44let's be bad because of a bunch of like
36:46health reasons um so this is maybe like
36:48what top half is going to be about
36:50you and cg can just be like look i don't
36:53care
36:54about the people who do drugs for fun
36:55just like low-key just like maybe i
36:57don't care about rehabilitation which
36:59is mostly an issue in developed
37:01countries what i care about
37:02is cartels maybe like cartel crime is
37:05devastating
37:06for loads of countries there are drug
37:07producers so for example mexico
37:09a lot of latin america are devastated by
37:12the hold of cartels and cartel crime
37:14um so you could say like look this is
37:16the most significant issue you should be
37:18talking about because literally
37:19thousands and tens of thousands of
37:22people die
37:22um for no fault of their own just
37:24because that country is too impoverished
37:26and is controlled by cartels um so you
37:28can see that this is a more significant
37:30issue but there are also more
37:31significant stakeholders
37:32uh stakeholders being you know people
37:34who live in that latin america
37:36or south america and who have to
37:40who then they are like more significant
37:42because they're more vulnerable
37:43so what is really critical is that you
37:44justify this reframing so you can't just
37:46go out and just be like
37:47obviously what this is about is cartels
37:50and obviously
37:51who really matters is like impoverished
37:53latin american people
37:54and not you know wall street guys who do
37:57lots of coke um so like you can't just
37:59like assert it really flippantly and i
38:01think that's what loads of people fall
38:02into your trap with it's because they
38:04inherently assume that's really obvious
38:06that your argument is really like more
38:08important
38:09so sometimes like it can be quite simple
38:11to justify the reframing so you can just
38:13be like look
38:14we care more about latin american
38:16stakeholders because
38:17they are more impoverished so you can
38:19say that they're more vulnerable
38:21look people in america like at least
38:24had some degree of decision about
38:26whether or not to take drugs
38:28versus the people in latin america who
38:30did not choose to be born in latin
38:32america and now had to face cartel crime
38:34just because of where they're born so
38:35you know a moral moral
38:37way of why latin american people matter
38:40more
38:40as well as just like that maybe just
38:42more latin american people who
38:43are murdered on a day-to-day basis
38:45because of cultural crime and so you can
38:47say like look because of this they just
38:49matter more so like sometimes it's quite
38:50it's quite simple to reframe the debate
38:52but other times it requires you to do
38:54quite a bit of work
38:56to give a different characterization of
38:57status quo so
38:59sometimes it just takes a lot of time
39:01for you to just
39:02you know uh talk about like why
39:05actually the characterization of the
39:07problems in opening half
39:09aren't the most important ones and what
39:11really is important is this new issue
39:13i'm bringing in so maybe it takes a bit
39:14more time
39:15to explain why that's true but the
39:17critical thing to remember is that you
39:19have to explain why it's true
39:20you have to explain why it's more
39:22important um
39:23and i would say heavily prioritize your
39:26extension
39:27unlike opening half we just have like
39:29all the time to matter jump um
39:31extension you have one one speech to get
39:34your extension out because your web
39:35can't do any critical analysis for you
39:38so really heavily prioritize your
39:39extension um
39:42i'll be talking about engagement later
39:43but heavily prioritize your extension so
39:45like
39:45even if it means that you can't we
39:47bought everything we bought some things
39:49and then move on to your extension uh
39:51i'll talk more a little bit about that
39:52later
39:53so how do you position your extension oh
39:55this is a big big slide
39:56um so there are two main extreme ways
39:59your extension can go down
40:01it can be completely random so it can
40:04the debate could have been
40:05something about completely different um
40:06before you um
40:08and then you're going to show them the
40:09light but your argument just seems like
40:11super
40:11random compared to what happened before
40:13or it can be
40:14the complete opposite which is like it
40:16could be like so on topic and you could
40:18be talking about such similar things
40:20that you could be interpreted as
40:21derivative of your opening
40:23so all extensions fall somewhere along
40:26the spectrum right
40:27um and so like try to as an extension
40:30speaker like
40:31listen to top half and understand
40:34what where you are on that spectrum so
40:36if you're closer to the end of the
40:38spectrum where you sound
40:39really random um there is a real risk of
40:42you sounding really dismissive
40:44off clash or irrelevant so when you come
40:46up and say like ah
40:47let me tell you what this debate is
40:48really about it sounds like you're
40:50dismissing everything that
40:51you know your own talked about or your
40:53og talked about
40:54um you sound really off clash or maybe
40:56potentially irrelevant because maybe
40:58the pm or the lo did the whole like this
41:00is what you should care about in this
41:01debate
41:02um and maybe me as a judge maybe i buy
41:05that metric or that i buy that
41:07preemptive weighing um so just randomly
41:09introducing a new order like a new
41:11like argument may make you sound really
41:14irrelevant to what has been
41:15characterized as the main issues in the
41:16debate
41:17so spend a significant amount of time
41:19carefully reframing don't just assert
41:21what the reality is
41:22justify why this is a reality so a
41:24really good example is this like this
41:26how supports
41:27the creation and use of lethal
41:28autonomous robots uh
41:31so like lethal autonomous robots are
41:32basically robocop
41:34they're like fully autonomous military
41:36weapons that can select and engage
41:38targets without human intervention so
41:40drones but
41:41imagine a drone without a pilot so we
41:43can just using artificial intelligence
41:45identify a target
41:46and shoot yeah so
41:49uh so this debate so like i debated this
41:53long time ago when i was in first year
41:55uh and my entire opening half
41:57was just like ah obviously this is about
42:00war
42:01um and so they say like look like the
42:03entire top half is
42:04about like look orgy says the creation
42:06and use of these autonomous robots
42:08is going to make wars a lot faster like
42:10easier to end
42:11um like human inter like humanitarian
42:14intervention will be a lot more frequent
42:16because you know people aren't
42:17sacrificing their own sons and daughters
42:19to help random people in rwanda
42:21you know like um and so like a lot of
42:23their arguments were addressing
42:24context of war my own opening uh took
42:27lots of arguments about just like like
42:29you know a lot more war crimes no one's
42:32going to be held responsible for these
42:33war crimes because drones will be
42:36the ones doing it um and this is
42:38terrible etc etc so a lot of it was
42:40about
42:41um the context of war but i actually
42:44like after like all my material was
42:46taken and i was like [ __ ]
42:47i need to think of more stuff i i sat
42:49back and she was like wait it doesn't
42:51actually say like in war
42:52so why don't they just use lethal
42:54autonomous robots for example policing
42:56um and so like i made an entire
42:58extension about like why lethal
42:59autonomous robots
43:01uh were going to be really bad if they
43:03were going to be implemented in policing
43:05so robocop right um and so i would say
43:08like yeah so
43:09obviously this impacts a lot more people
43:12because
43:12a lot of people like most people don't
43:14live in war zones
43:16um so it's just going to impact your
43:17minorities living in urban areas it's
43:19going to impact
43:20normal ass people going out about that
43:22day so obviously
43:24this is a really important like this is
43:26a really important extension and that's
43:28all i thought it was needed to take the
43:30first um
43:31actually what i also needed to do was
43:33justify
43:35why lethal autonomous robots would be
43:37used in policing
43:38so just like i just assumed you know
43:41that
43:41this house supports the creation and use
43:43of lethal autonomous robots it was just
43:44going to be used everywhere
43:45um and you know like i needed to justify
43:49like look if you
43:50support the creation using lethal
43:51autonomous robots you're a couple
43:53structural reasons
43:54about why people like why for example
43:56states will adopt them in police forces
43:58because you know police forces are
44:00really stretched
44:00as population increases crime becomes a
44:03bigger problem
44:04so when funding is decreasing there's a
44:06lot of incentive to
44:08try to cut you know like to try to
44:09automate a lot of stuff
44:11and you can automate just for example
44:13police's police
44:15patrols so it was likely that you know
44:17you have these autonomous robots doing
44:18patrols
44:19and in case if they see a crime go down
44:22or they see a hostage situation they can
44:23take action if it's needed
44:24um and so that's the kind of analysis i
44:27needed to
44:28say in order to prove why this was a
44:30relevant part of the debate
44:32um and and also like when
44:35to make sure that you're not sounding
44:37dismissive you still
44:39heavily engage or directly rebut other
44:41people's arguments that came before you
44:43um so if you're seen if you're in cg and
44:46like
44:46you know like you're in the drug debate
44:48like this house would legalize all drugs
44:50oh oh it's gonna be like oh no but more
44:51people are gonna take drugs
44:53you know if you legalize all drugs
44:55that's really bad because
44:57next you makes you like really you know
44:59like you make it like
45:00there's loads of bad health consequences
45:02like rather than just saying like i
45:04don't care about this
45:05like you can just show that you're being
45:07generous and just being like look
45:09let me direct you about why this is not
45:11true just for example say like
45:12um addiction is particularly a social
45:15problem
45:16if you just have a good life um and you
45:19are like
45:20quite like you're quite well adjusted
45:22unlikely you're going to ever
45:24risk [ __ ] that up by taking crystal
45:26meth it's only people who are incredibly
45:27incredibly in dire situations
45:29and need relief now that take crystal
45:32math and those people are not
45:33deterred by things like criminalization
45:35because things are so dire they would
45:36rather commit a crime
45:38than continue living their life without
45:39any belief and so
45:41you can um so you can that's how you
45:44directly rebut that idea that there's
45:45going to be an increase
45:46and significant increase of people
45:48randomly taking drugs for no reason
45:50um and so you sure are showing to be
45:52quite generous
45:53to their arguments and and you're at
45:55least like if the judge completely
45:57doesn't buy your reframing
45:58you still have your bottles to credit
46:00that engage with the top half
46:01um cool and so if it's the second type
46:04of scenario where
46:05you are so on topic or so on clash that
46:08there is a chance that you can be
46:10interpreted as derivative
46:12flag the unique pieces of analysis
46:14you're going to be adding
46:16right at the beginning right at the
46:17beginning uh i like
46:19come up in your speech and just say like
46:20look it's top half has been caught in
46:23this
46:23terrible deadlock they've just been
46:25bickering on back and forth
46:27and they've not like you know uh they've
46:30not addressed like the key areas of
46:31debate
46:32um so this and i'm going to take this
46:35debate by resolving this
46:37log by giving you xyz analysis um the
46:39reason why you did this right at the
46:40beginning not randomly at the end when
46:42you flag it in the mid in the middle
46:43uh is because if a judge hears that
46:46you're even being slightly derivative
46:48to tunes out doesn't even bother
46:51listening to what unique analysis you
46:52could be giving
46:53so it's really really good to reduce any
46:55risk of that happening by flagging it
46:56just
46:57right at the beginning um yeah and like
46:59don't waste time
47:00reiterating pieces of analysis the
47:02opening half has already covered
47:04um so you know don't bother like if
47:06opening half is just like yeah toxic
47:08levels of positivity are really bad
47:09because
47:10you know you mental it's terrible for
47:12people who with mental health who are
47:13told to just be positive it's really
47:15terrible for minorities who are just
47:17told to be more positive and just you
47:19know work harder to overcome
47:21social barriers you know um and so
47:24like if opening opening government has
47:26talked a lot about the impacts already
47:28no need for me to go into that much
47:30depth about the impacts just be like
47:31look
47:32um we gave you the critical analysis
47:34that shows you why og actually gets
47:36those impacts so we co-opt their impacts
47:38um don't bother just like repeating them
47:40because you just waste time
47:41um yeah anything else that next slide
47:46by the way feel free to unmute yourself
47:49ask any questions or just type in the
47:50chat if you have any questions last
47:52slide
47:52luckily i timed it really well because
47:53lucy just told me that she finished
47:55engagement as a first speaker
47:57um so engagement is still really
48:00important as a first speaker
48:01um so for two main reasons okay the
48:04first reason
48:05is a bit stupid i it's sometimes like
48:07debate it's just kind of one of those
48:09things where you just have to engage
48:10with people because it's part of the
48:12role you just have to like you can't
48:13just like ignore people's arguments you
48:15just gotta engage
48:16to show that you're being really
48:17generous to them this show that you're
48:19really like
48:20you're listening to them and stuff like
48:21even if like
48:23like judges say like that's technically
48:25not part of the rules like they care
48:26about it so
48:28it's part of it it's the performative
48:30engagement the second more important
48:32part is that as
48:32a first speaker maybe some of the
48:34arguments that you're running um
48:36are being actively obstructed because
48:39your opponent has claimed something
48:40completely contradictory
48:42um so for example if my argument is
48:43about like the sky is orange
48:46if our my if my opponent has claimed the
48:48sky is blue
48:50i have to address that claim and rebut
48:52it before i can run my case about why
48:54the sky is orange
48:55um so the way that you engage as a first
48:59speaker is that you tackle the biggest
49:00lines of
49:01argumentation so don't rebound and
49:02engage with every single thing
49:04the way that you performatively show
49:06that you're being in
49:07like you're engaging is to just look at
49:10the most critical analysis that holds up
49:12your opponent's case
49:14um so for example if it's the
49:16legalization of drugs case
49:17the most important assumption in that
49:19case is that criminalization
49:21is the thing that currently stops people
49:23from doing drugs
49:24um and if you just remove that loads of
49:26normal ass people are going to
49:28do drugs so because i know that's the
49:31critical analysis
49:32um focus on that biggest claim and just
49:34give
49:35loads of responses to why that's not
49:37true so focus on depth
49:39and not comprehensiveness because maybe
49:41oh run other arguments i'll just
49:43kind of one-liners i guess they kind of
49:46hold up but you know
49:47like it's not as important as like the
49:49main claim that you know
49:50drug use is going to increase so the way
49:52that i show i'm being really generous in
49:54my
49:54engagement is to just tackle the biggest
49:57line of argumentation or the biggest
49:58lines
49:59give robust multi-tiered responses as to
50:02why they're not true
50:02and just move on um i don't have to
50:04tackle every single thing that's
50:05something my rip can clean up for me
50:07um and also prioritize rebutting the
50:09analysis that contradicts your arguments
50:12um so um if you want to say something
50:15like i don't know like the sky is
50:17like the sky is orange and that's why
50:20i don't know like that's why it's really
50:22good for xyz reasons
50:24uh and my opponent says the sky is blue
50:27i
50:28really need to prioritize rebutting that
50:29piece of analysis before i can go on to
50:31my extension because it actively
50:33obstructs me
50:34so when there are contradictory claims
50:36in debate for example
50:37the sky is blue versus the sky is orange
50:40the
50:41burden is on the last speaker to engage
50:43so the first assertion is considered to
50:45be true
50:45and not the ensuing counter assertion
50:49so first your butt the initial assertion
50:51before you can go on to your
50:53to your assertion uh so the burden is on
50:56you
50:56to respond um to to that before you
51:00before you move on to extension cool so
51:02that's all i have
51:03as to be a good first speaker i really
51:05hope that this was useful especially the
51:07forecasting part
51:08because i think this critical part of
51:09being good as a first speaker or being
51:11just a good debater in general
51:12is to be able to look at emotion just go
51:14like yep understand why i need to prove
51:16um cool if there are no questions let's

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of First Speeches (PM/LO & Extension) - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 6 by Manchester Debating Union, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,984 words across 1,703 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.