First Proposition
Set up the debate and build the case. Define the motion where definition is needed, present a model if the motion calls for one, explain the burdens your side accepts, and deliver the first two substantive arguments with clear mechanisms.
What to prioritize
- A definition that is reasonable and debatable, not one that narrows the motion to make it easy.
- Mechanisms: explain step by step how your policy or principle produces the outcome you claim.
- Impacts that say who is affected, how badly, and why that matters.
Common mistakes
- Spending three minutes on background and definitions before the first argument appears.
- Asserting outcomes without a causal chain, so later speakers have nothing to defend.
- Defining the motion so narrowly that adjudicators see it as avoiding the real debate.
Preparation checklist
- Can I state the team line in one sentence?
- Does each argument have a mechanism, an impact and a stakeholder?
- Have I said what would have to be true for us to lose?
First Opposition
Respond to the proposition's framing, then build the opposition case. This is the only speech that has to do both jobs from scratch, so time management decides how well it goes.
What to prioritize
- Engage the definition or framing immediately if it is unreasonable; accept it quickly if it is fine.
- Rebut the proposition's strongest argument, not the easiest one.
- Present a positive opposition case rather than only objecting.
Common mistakes
- Pure rebuttal with no constructive material, which leaves the opposition with nothing to weigh.
- Challenging a reasonable definition and burning three minutes on a fight the adjudicator does not care about.
- Rebutting examples instead of the underlying reasoning.
Preparation checklist
- Have I answered the proposition's core mechanism, not just its examples?
- Do I have at least one argument that stands even if their case works?
- Is my split with second opposition clear?
Second Proposition
Rebuild the case after first opposition and extend it. This speech carries the heaviest rebuttal load on the proposition side while adding new analysis of its own.
What to prioritize
- Rebuild: answer the attacks on your first speaker's material before adding anything new.
- Extend with genuinely new analysis, not a restatement in different words.
- Begin the comparison: why does your side's world beat theirs?
Common mistakes
- Rebutting everything shallowly instead of resolving the two or three attacks that matter.
- Calling repetition an extension.
- Leaving all comparison to the third speaker.
Preparation checklist
- Which attack most threatened our case, and did I answer it directly?
- Is my extension new reasoning, a new application or a new stakeholder?
- Have I said why we win a clash, not just that we disagree?
Second Opposition
Mirror the second proposition's job for the opposition: rebut the extended proposition case, develop opposition material, and keep the opposition's comparative alive.
What to prioritize
- Attack the proposition's mechanism where it is weakest, not where it is most convenient.
- Develop the opposition case with deeper warranting or a new application.
- Frame the round: what should the adjudicator be comparing?
Common mistakes
- Repeating first opposition's rebuttal without adding reasoning.
- Introducing an entirely new opposition case that abandons the first speaker's line.
- Running out of time before any comparison happens.
Preparation checklist
- Have I both defended our case and attacked theirs?
- Is our team line still the same one first opposition set?
- Have I named the clash I want the round decided on?
Third Proposition
Identify and prioritize the clashes that decide the debate, resolve them comparatively, and crystallize why the proposition wins. Generally no new substantive arguments.
What to prioritize
- Choose two or three clashes and explain, in each, what both teams said and why yours prevails.
- Weigh: explain why your winning issue matters more than theirs.
- Answer the opposition's best late material.
Common mistakes
- Listing clashes without resolving them, which is identification rather than weighing.
- Re-running the debate chronologically speech by speech.
- Smuggling in a new argument that the opposition cannot answer.
Preparation checklist
- Have I said which side wins each clash, and why?
- Have I compared the importance of the clashes to each other?
- Is everything I said traceable to material already in the round?
Third Opposition
The same comparative job from the opposition side: rebut late proposition material, prioritize the decisive clashes, and defend the opposition's win condition.
What to prioritize
- Answer third proposition's framing before offering your own.
- Show that the proposition's mechanism fails or that its impacts are outweighed.
- Set the ground the reply speeches will fight on.
Common mistakes
- Repeating first opposition's arguments with no development, which adjudicators read as repetition.
- Defending against every point rather than the decisive ones.
- Introducing new substantive material this late in the round.
Preparation checklist
- Have I explained why we win the clash they say decides the debate?
- Have I developed rather than restated our earlier material?
- Would a judge who only heard my speech know our route to victory?
Proposition Reply
A short, strategic summary from the proposition's perspective, usually four minutes and normally given by the first or second speaker. It tells the adjudicator how to read the round.
What to prioritize
- Give a hierarchy: the issues that decide the round, in order of importance.
- Adjudicate comparatively rather than restating your case.
- Close with one decisive reason the proposition wins.
Common mistakes
- Introducing new arguments or new mechanisms, which is not permitted.
- Summarizing chronologically instead of by issue.
- Asserting a win without explaining the comparison behind it.
Preparation checklist
- Have I named the issue the round turns on?
- Have I compared both teams on that issue?
- Is every claim already in the round?
Opposition Reply
Delivered before the proposition reply, this is the opposition's final structured account of the round. Same rules: no new substantive material, comparative framing throughout.
What to prioritize
- Take the strongest version of the proposition's case and explain why it still loses.
- Collapse into fewer issues when one genuinely subsumes the others, and say why it does.
- Explain what the adjudicator should weigh most heavily and why.
Common mistakes
- Listing every disagreement instead of prioritizing.
- Restating rebuttal without turning it into a comparison.
- Introducing new material because it is the last opposition speech.
Preparation checklist
- Have I explained why our issue outweighs theirs?
- Did I engage their best point, not their worst?
- Have I left the judge one sentence they can vote on?
New material in third and reply speeches
Third speakers are generally expected not to introduce new substantive arguments. New rebuttal, further analysis of arguments already in the round and new examples supporting existing claims are usually acceptable; a fresh independent argument is usually not, because the other side has little chance to respond. Where exactly the line sits depends on your tournament's rules and the adjudicator's expectations.
Reply speeches cannot introduce new substantive material at all. A reply reframes, compares and weighs what has already been said. If a point could not have been made without the reply, it does not belong there. The reply speech guide explains how to stay within that limit while still sounding decisive.
Rules and conventions differ between circuits and age groups. Treat this as common practice rather than a universal rulebook, and check the regulations of the competition you enter.