The Summary Speech

Extending, frontlining, rebutting: the summary speech. Three minutes long, but arguably the most difficult and important speech in a Public Forum debate round. It’s where most judges sign off on their mental ballot, setting the stage for the latter end of the round. Although it may seem daunting for new first speakers, the best approach to summaries is truly PRACTICE. So here are a couple of tips to improve your summary speech and get you more wins in your rounds.

1. SIGNPOST

First, a definition:

Theoretically, it should be easy, but many debaters see losses because of a lack of signposting. On the macro, you should use signposting to tell your judge which side of the flow you’re on (Aff or Neg) and which contention you're moving onto. On the micro, you should tell your judge which response you’re addressing on the flow. This doesn’t mean fully summarizing or restating your opponent's argument—that will only help them. It should be more of you saying, “First on [1-3 words telling your judge which response you’re on].” For example, you could say “first, on oil dependence” or “second, on nuclear leaks.” This way, you’re not reinforcing your opponent’s arguments but also telling your judge exactly where you are on the flow. Once you perfect your signposting, you’ll feel much more in control of your summary, and trust me, your judge will appreciate it.

2. Extend Extensions:

The base of a summary speech, but often the most neglected. When many first speakers take on the responsibility of extending, they often forget the most important part. Telling your narrative. As important as your argumentation is, none of it matters unless your judge understands what you’re trying to say. And remember, extending doesn’t mean yelling out card names and dates. Explain your link chain, your warrants, and your impact; why should the judge care? Now, I get it, all of this can feel overwhelming, so here are two effective approaches to perfecting your extensions.

First, try prewritten extensions. Prewritten extensions not only help with your clarity, but they also improve time management (a crucial aspect of the summary speech). When you can craft a few brief but impactful sentences reinforcing your narrative, the summary speech can feel a lot cleaner. Your judge knows where to go on the flow, and they gain a better understanding of your contention: a win-win. Prewritten extensions also help you and your partner create a better feeling of cohesiveness within a round. Your partner can utilize similar language in their Final Focus, keeping a consistent narrative throughout. However, a common mistake with prewritten extensions is the robotic tone a first speaker falls into when reading them. Treat these extensions the same way you treat your case. You want to be impactful, and you want your judge to REMEMBER. So add in vocal variation, add emotion, and add life.

Another effective approach to extensions is the “on-the-spot” extension. Despite its literal meaning, “on-the-spot” extensions don’t mean going in blind. That approach often wastes critical time, depletes credibility, and can lead to you dropping essential aspects of your case. Rather, “on-the-spot” extensions are similar to prewritten ones in the way that you have an understanding of a couple of key points and cards that you want to communicate to your judge. However, they differ in the way that there is nothing that you write out beforehand—it’s all happening as you speak. Some debaters prefer this approach because it helps them sound more natural, and they’re able to tweak their language depending on the round. This method is often for more high-level debaters, so don’t worry too much if you’re not the best at this yet. But again, remember, it’s only practice that will help you build up your skills. So I encourage you to experiment with both of these methods until you find one that you prefer or until you create one of your own.

3. Frontline (or rebuild)

Frontlining is one of the most important jobs of a first speaker. Without frontlines, you have nothing for your judge to vote for you on. Think of your case as a building and your opponent’s rebuttal as a massive wrecking ball. Your summary should come in, pick up the rubble, and rebuild your case piece by piece. Your frontlining should go beyond “cross-apply this” or “Jimmy 24 says this.” Similar to extending, you have to TALK to your judge. Tell them the warrants as to why your opponent’s responses don’t de-link your case, why they're non-responsive, or why your evidence should be preferred. Without frontlines, your extensions will be going “through ink,” meaning that you are reinforcing your case without responding to your opponent’s responses. Additionally, when you frontline, it’s important to go down the flow; if you jump around, you will lose your judge, and none of your responses will matter.

4. WEIGH

Weighing is a mechanism utilized in debate to help the judge evaluate the round based on which arguments carry more “weight.” In other words, which side has more important implications. I’m sure you have heard of the basics:

- Magnitude, Scope, Probability, Timeframe, etc.

But to effectively weigh within a summary speech, yelling out these buzzwords won’t do anything but lessen your credibility as a debater. First, understand what these weighing mechanisms mean so you don’t contradict the evidence. For example, saying you outweigh them on scope when your opponents clearly have larger numerical impacts than you is not only a waste of time, but it also gives your opponents the ability to easily respond in their speeches.

After you have a good understanding of these mechanisms, the next step is placement. Where a debater weighs in their summary speech is often based on personal preference. You could weigh in between contentions or at the very end of your speech—there are pros and cons to both. Weighing in between contentions can give you better control over what you're weighing and the clarity of your language. However, this method can eat away at time if you're not careful. Weighing at the end of your summary can help with a feeling of cohesiveness, and you can use information from all of the contentions in your round. On the downside, if you don't allocate enough time for weighing at the end, it can lead to choppiness or inconsistencies.

Once you get a handle on weighing, you can move on to “Metaweighing” or the process of weighing different weighing mechanisms against one another. Metaweighing is especially useful when each side is winning on a different weighing mechanism, and you want the judge to prioritize yours in their decision. A basic example of metaweighing is when a debater says, “Put probability over magnitude because we must put probable impacts over larger, unrealistic ones.” Metaweighing is a great tool to get you and your opponents on an equal footing when your impacts are vastly different.

Now what? I know all this information being thrown at you is a lot, and you may be thinking, “How can I fit all of this in three minutes?” The best piece of advice I can give you is PRACTICE. Implement what you have learned into your summaries, and it's okay if it doesn't always work out; we learn the most from our failures. So don't be afraid to lose some ballots—it’s all a part of the process to grow into a better, more confident debater.

That’s all for now, stay brilliant!

The Forensic Funnel Team