TYPES OF SPEECHES
Authorship/Sponsorship
What is an authorship?
An authorship speech is the first affirmative speech given in each round, by the competitor who submitted the piece of legislation in the docket. As the person who introduced the issue, the author is expected to have the greatest understanding of the topic at discussion and introduce the intent and action plan of their legislation to the remainder of the chamber.
Who gives an authorship speech?
At the bottom of each piece of legislation in the provided docket, the author and institution affiliated with that piece of legislation will be provided, usually under the wording of “Submitted for Congressional Debate by (name of student), (name of institution)
The name of the student who is listed on the piece of legislation has priority and is deemed the author of the bill.
How does an offcicial authorship/sponsorship affect precedence/recency?
An official authorship/sponsorship is the only type of speech for which precedence/recency can be legally disturbed in favor of a competitor in round.
An official author, if present in the chamber, holds precedence over any sponsor from their institution.
Should the official author not be present, the official sponsor (who must come from the same institution as the author listed on the legislation) will have their previous record of precedence and recency disregarded in order to give the first affirmative speech.
Remember:
This speech should be prepared before hand. The expectation is that the speech is polished since it can be written entirely beforehand. Lay out the problem, how your bill solves it and why that matter and do so simply. Since you're speaking early, establish round presence in questioning and defend your side.
Check out our full resource page on Authorships and Sponsorships here.
What should I do if I am denied my authorship speech?
In the scenario that your name is listed on the legislation on the packet which was sent to competitors: call a point of order to the presiding officer and ask for them to verify the author of the bill.
As authorships, unofficial sponsorships, and official sponsorships vary minimally in their structure and purpose, the main variation between these three types of speeches will be in the legislation itself and the goal which the legislation is trying to achieve - and how the legislation will be effective and ethical in achieving it. Examples of authorship/sponsorship speeches can be broken down in a similar structure.
Watch an example of a sponsorship speech in action at the 2023 House finals here! (Start at 45:39)
Unofficial vs Official Sponsorship
Structurally, an authorship, official sponsorship, and unofficial sponsorship are all given in the same format of a first affirmative, and with the same purpose of giving the foundational arguments in favor of a piece of legislation and change.
An official sponsorship is given by a competitor who comes from the same institution as the author who is listed on the legislation.
An unofficial sponsorship, also known as a fiesta affirmative, is given by a competitor who comes from a different institution as the one listed on the legislation.
Do all tournaments recognize official sponsors?
The short answer is no.
Every tournament will give automatic precedence and the opportunity to give the first affirmative speech to the author of the legislation, if in chamber.
Some tournaments or circuits DO NOT recognize “official sponsorships” in order to avoid controversy and promote equity and opportunity for smaller schools.
In this case, should two competitors be vying for the sponsorship/first affirmative speech, the competitor with the more favorable precedence or recency in round will be given priority, without consideration for the institutional affiliation of either competitionor.
What is an unofficial sponsorship/first affirmative speech?
An unofficial sponsorship/first affirmative speech is given by a competitor who feels confident in their arguments and is familiar with the piece of legislation and issue at hand to an extent which allows them to take responsibility for initiating debate on the issue and adopting the piece of legislation as theirs to pass or fail.
Structurally and purposefully, an unofficial sponsorship is identical to an authorship or sponsorship. It should define the problem which the legislation aims to address, and why that piece of legislation would be effective at causing effective and necessary change. Like an authorship or official sponsorship, an unofficial sponsorship speech establishes the main issues and points of debate for the remainder of the legislative discussion.
How does an unofficial sponsorship affect precedence and recency?
Unlike an official sponsorship, those who desire to give an unofficial sponsorship speech are not given priority against other competitors in the round, and are recognized on the basis of past precedence and recency.
Should there be multiple competitors who wish to give an unofficial sponsorship, the competitor with the most favorable precedence (least amount of speeches given in the current session) will be allowed to give the unofficial sponsorship. If multiple speeches have been given recency takes over
Need help crafting the perfect sponsorship and early round speeches?
Watch this lecture by Breck DuPaul that goes into the ins and outs of early round speaking.
Example Sponsorship
Check out a sponsorship Breck DuPaul, our Congress Director, wrote and gave!
Also follow our breakdown of Katy's sponsorship speech below!
Breakdown:
“No matter how old you are or what your job is, everyone has been affected by this past year’s pandemic”
Introducing the broad impact of the legislation.
Appealing who the legislation could help: “everyone who has been affected by this past year’s pandemic”
Notice that the introduction is directly related and specific to a certain piece of legislation: unrelated introductions are, more often than not, a pure waste of time which leaves the audience and judges confused.
“But perhaps no more so than the children within our school system”
Introducing the target audience which has a problem in the status quo, which the legislation aims to solve or mitigate.
“Converting from in-person classrooms to purely online education hasn’t been an easy process”
Introducing the roots of the issue in the status quo: setting up to later explain why this piece of legislation will help to mitigate the impacts of the problem in the status quo.
“Education is the most important tool for our youth and our children”
Establishing why the issue is significant, and setting up to introduce why passing/affirming is urgently necessary.
Reverting back to the mention of “the children within our school system” to directly explain the problem in the status quo which is faced by the target demographic of the legislation.
“Education is the only way to break people out of poverty and uplift people into success”
Establishing why the issue which is addressed in this piece of legislation is crucial and is the most effective way to treat the issues in the status quo.
Introducing broader impacts which may require more connections and explanation due to their implicit and indirect nature, however can strengthen the necessity to pay attention to a piece of legislation.
“So what’s the problem with the status quo? The Pew Research Center in April of 2020 explains…because they don't have access to broadband internet service”
Directly citing names and terminology which is specifically mentioned in the title or in the legislation itself to demonstrate the relevancy of evidence.
Introducing basic level evidence from a reliable source which gives credibility to the existence of a widespread problem in the status quo.
Gathers attention and urgency by quantifying the impact and importance of a piece of legislation.
“Point blank, oor nad low income students who don’t have routers in their homes or don’t have infrastructure…can’t complete their education”
Directly, in simple terms, explaining the broader and more widespread implications of the aforementioned evidence.
In preparation to explain why such an issue is:
Important to solve or mitigate.
Effective solved or mitigated with the passage of the legislation.
Explaining impacts and drawing connections can be especially useful in lower-level competitions with less experienced competitors and judges, on topics which the general populace is less familiar with, or in cases where an implication is raised which is implicit or indirectly linked to the action stated in the legislation.
“But why is this so harmful? It’s because the University of Pennsylvania in a publication from April of 2019 explains…is the best way to increase social mobility for people''
Note: once more, using credible, well known, and recent sources to corroborate impacts and the importance of passing legislation.
Directly explaining why the problems in the status quo cause damage to the target demographic of the legislation.
Preparing to explain why the legislation will help to solve the issues which are “so harmful,” ‘and hence why the legislation is worth an affirmative vote.
“So what does my legislation do? We bring broadband internet access to everyone”
After painting a picture of the problems under the status quo, the author directly states that passing her legislation can take a measure which has been proven - by the previously cited evidence - to be effective in achieving positive impacts - also known as a “net gain.”
“Section 2 details how we’re going to be implementing an income tax that is the exact amount it would take to build infrastructure for consumers and American constituents with a child in the K-12 school system to be able to afford this broadband internet access.”
Detailing the relevance of the evidence and impacts to this particular piece of legislation - not all legislation on a particular topic are created equal and have the same impacts, efficacy, implementation, and side effects!
Answering The question of “where will these money and resources be coming from” and explaining the “how” mechanism behind the success of the legislation.
Reiterating “what exactly the legislation accomplishes and aims to build.
Recapturing the focus on “who” the legislation will most directly impact, supported by the previously mentioned evidence which demonstrated the vulnerability of this demographic to the negative consequences and gaps in the status quo.
Once more, directly utilizing terminology which is stated in the legislation and introduction - remember that not every piece of legislation on a particular topic is interchangeable! Consistent usage of terminology can demonstrate both knowledge, consistency, and relevance of speech content.
“That income tax credit would go directly off their federal income tax which they pay yearly, it wouldn’t be a difficult thing to do, and is highly implementable”
Preemptively anticipating one of the main grounds for passing/failing which will be debated during the round, and demonstrating her acknowledgement of the concern, later planting the seed for the claim that the counterclaim - in this case, the additional income tax credit - is non viable to be used as rationale for failing her legislation due to the defenses and protections which already stand to mitigate the impacts of an additional income tax.
Explaining that the “how” mechanisms that were previously explained would be practical, though this would be more effective if supported with evidence or a previous historical precedent.
Preparing to defend the practicality of the “how” mechanisms which are used to implement the legislation.
“You also see companies being incentivized to build infrastructure in rural areas or remote locations when they have a guarantee of profit and security. According to data from the Federal Communications Commission…”
Having already introduced the impact of “more schoolchildren in public school systems being able to access broadband internet and complete school, hence giving way to increased social mobility and opportunity,” the sponsor raises another positive side effect of passing her legislation which would be a net gain, or a positive net change, on the situation in the status quo.
The viability of the impact is corroborated by another reliable source. Note: the year of a publication or source should always be noted.
“....39% of people living in rural places in America lack access to high speed broadband”
For the second contention (which was denoted with the inclusion of a transition word, “second”), the author once again establishes an issue in the status quo in preparation to explain why her legislation will be effective in solving such an issue if passed.
Explaining who is being positively affected by the passage of her legislation.
Acknowledging the breadth and depth of an implication which, as the sponsor will later explain, results directly from the passage of her legislation.
“Rural areas have the fewest options for internet service providers because companies have less of an incentive to build up expensive networks in areas with a lower probability of being able to access them in the first place”
Another example of quantifying the issue in the status quo and explaining the underlying mechanisms which have caused such disparities and injustices.
The common warrant in the debate - between both sides - is that they wish to take action and pass legislation which makes education and the internet more accessible, and thus increases social mobility.
In this example, Lin paints the issue in the status quo as an issue which can be solved by the passing of her legislation.
“This bill fundamentally changes that decision calculus for these corporations because now they know that the federal government is directly subsidizing this [the building of networks and quality infrastructure in areas with a lower probability of being able to access internet under the status quo]
Directly stating to the chamber and the judges that her legislation will change the exact issues which she has defined in the status quo, asserting not only the efficacy and solvency of her legislation, but the relevance of the previously presented issues to the debate about her legislation.
Explaining and proving the previously made assertion that passing her legislation will result in positive change and net gain in the problem areas presented in the status quo.
Ways to strengthen and prove the credibility and practicality of the assertions made in this statement (later in the speech):
Raising evidence of previous precedent: if similar legislation, policy, or action has been implemented in the past or in another country and has resulted in positive impacts, explain how that is related to the currently debated legislation and how the current legislation can result in similar impacts.
Using evidence to justify the validity of such an assertion.
“Lower income people in these rural areas are going to be able to afford these bills in the first place.”
Presenting a direct impact of passing the legislation and the changes that result from the direct passage of the legislation currently debated.
Reverting the debate and impact back to the target demographic and beneficiary which was mentioned earlier in the speech and contention.
Defining how the legislation changes the problems that were previously defined in the status quo for the target demographic/beneficiary.
For quick access, check out this slideshow on constructives by CJ Getting. This will help you master the skill in no time.
Example Constructive
Follow our breakdown of Genevieve's constructive speech below, but first read our summary of the first affirmative for context!
Constructive Speeches
What is a constructive?
AA constructive speech is a speech which is designed to introduce the bulk and framework of the legislation and the issues to which it pertains. Think of it as the skeleton of a body, while the later speeches following the constructives are the muscle and flesh.
What should be contained in a constructive?
the main arguments for or against the bill
Status Quo- establishing the problem (don't rehash what the author said) AKA
Solvency- how does the bill solve for the status quo or make it worse
- its good to include the Common Warrant here, a common warrant is the underlying assumption/fact that makes your side's argument true
Impact- how would passing help/harm people?
What SHOULD NOT be in a constructive?
Extensive refutation- yes you need to refute in every single speech after the authorship, however refutation should be clean and concise, excessive name-dropping makes what should be a clean speech sloppy
Rabbit Hole Arguments- if you're taking 20 warrants to get to your argument...its probably a bad argument or framed badly. Focus on arguments that are smart but simple to understand.
Example Constructive Speeches
Legislation: An increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
1st negation speech: Genevieve Cox - Ascend Speech and Debate Camp Showcase 2021 <-----click here to watch the video
In order to understand the direction of the debate and central contentions of the first negation speech, it is necessary to first understand the legislation itself as well as the contentions and stakeholders recognized by the sponsorship/first affirmative speech.
Contentions of the sponsorship/first affirmative speech:
Hunter Brown - Ascend Speech and Debate Camp Showcase 2021<----- click here to watch the video
Congress has the power to vote and sign off to raise their own wages, making them perhaps the most privileged demographic in the country. However, 53 million American workers near the minimum wage line lack such a privilege or quality of life.
Inflation is the main cause for the necessity to pass.
Stagnant wages and shrinking buying power through time and inflation has caused the need for passage of a bill which raises the minimum wage to $15, up from $7.25 in the status quo.
Labor monopolies discourage competitive wages and cause the labor market to become uncompetitive, while competition between companies is traditionally one of the main sources through which wages increase and workers define the value of their work.
The factors which have caused a sharp recent rise in domestic monopoly of an industry, where an industry is dominated by a few large companies.
American citizens working minimum wage jobs are working heavy hours, however the poverty rate rises alongside the frequency of industrial monopolies.
Where does the legislation on the floor provide solvency for the issues defined under the status quo:
Giving financial protection to workers by raising the minimum hourly wage.
Guaranteeing a wage which is sufficient for living, as the cost of survival for an individual with no children mathematically demonstrated the necessity of such a raise in the minimum wage.
Breakdown of the 1st negative speech which followed immediately the 1st affirmative:
“In a world of rapidly advancing technology”
Describing some relevant parts of the surrounding environment which are not directly stated in the legislation or in the first affirmation speech, but can strengthen the case to fail or be linked to an impact.
“It is meaningless, even vindictive, for this Congress to pass reform that does not offer protection”
Stating the fundamental issue of the legislation without specifics: the reform does not offer protection.
This statement should be supported by evidence and examples later in the speech.
“Not protection for few of our constituents, senator Brown, but all of them”
Combining the crystallization/refutation structure with constructive structure which builds foundations for the further debate and puts forth the primary grounds for failing.
This phrase posits that the negation’s grounds for failing outweigh the affirmation's grounds for passing by quantifying that the negatoin’s world will protect all constituents, while the affirmation’s world only protects a few constituents.
Claims such as these, especially quantifiable ones, should be supported with evidence and precedent later in the speech.
“Stand with me, fail today’s legislation”
Clarifying the stance, and assertively transitioning into the contententions of the speech.
“Fail today’s legislation because it will drive automation and cost jobs”
A general statement of a direct impact which will come as a result of passing the legislation on the table.
Though a direct refutation is not included in the general statement because of its general and constructive nature, a judge or another competitor will link this impact back to the first affirmation speaker’s impact of giving protection to workers by raising the minimum wage.
Judges will then evaluate these two claims against each other, and use the first negation speaker’s justification to determine whether or not they were able to sufficiently negate the first affirmative speaker’s net gain.
“Restaurants and warehouses are particularly low paying and highly sensitive to the raises proposed today”
“Proposed today” - links back to the legislation itself and quantifies how the direct bill at hand - not the general topic of increasing minimum wage - hurts the stakeholders mentioned.
Raises specific stakeholders who are hurt by the legislation, expanding on the previously general statement of “jobs.”
It is expected, then, that the speaker will quantify how many jobs in the restaurant and warehouse sectors will be hurt by the passage of the legislation and how lives will be impacted in a negative manner.
“The Pew Research Center on January 4th of 2017 explains: there ar eabout 18% of mere minimum wage jobs in the United States which are in the foodservice and restaurant industry.”
Quantifies and corroborates the previous statement about the legislation’s damage to restaurants and warehouses by bringing specific evidence which demonstrates the quantity of lives - especially low income lives - which will be impacted negatively by the passage of the bill.
Note: the author’s name should be mentioned when citing a source, in addition to the date of publication. The source of publication is not required, though can clarify and give additional credibility in some cases.
“Higher wages will force businesses to face undesirable options which are just fancier wording for cutting staff, raising prices, and adopting automation.”
“Higher wages” = a direct impact of the legislation itself: raising the mandatory minimum wage.
“Cutting staff” = direct negation of the first affirmative speaker’s case. Even though a direct namedrop is not included, the round now debates on the premise that the net gain posed by the first affirmative speaker (higher wages for working employees) is nonviable as long as the first negative speaker’s contention has been proven viable (higher wages will put working employees out of work altogether).
“Adopting automation” = an impact which directly hurts low-income workers in low-skill jobs and occupations which are vulnerable to being replaced by automation. This is a direct reflection on the generalized claim of automation that was made earlier, and supports the credibility and validity of the above claim.
“The Brookings Institute Paper, January 2020 found that low wage jobs are now being fully replaced by automation twice as fast as they were in 2008.”
Citing evidence to support the claim which was previously raised as rationale to fail the legislation in order to prevent stakeholders and constituents from being replaced by automation.
Note: the name of the author should also be mentioned alongside the date of publication for the source cited.
“Minimum wages directly correlate with an increase in unemployment”
The first negation speech is a constructive speech. While later speakers may try to raise impacts which are indirectly linked but can still provide rationale to pass or fail, the first negative speaker is responsible for raising the most directly linked and strongly correlated impacts. Among the most directly linked and strongly correlated impacts, they are responsible for raising those that have the heaviest magnitude and most relevance to the life of their constituents or target demographic.
The first negative speaker makes it clear that the impact of “unemployment” is not conjecture, based on assumption, or based on chance: rather, it has been demonstrated and supported by evidence to be directly linked with the action taken in the legislation.
This claim directly negates and refutes the first affirmation speaker’s contention that the legislation will benefit workers with the premise that workers cannot be benefitted or paid more if their companies cannot afford to employ them at all.
“For example, Amazon recently announced an increase in their warehouse pay to 15 dollars an hour for their workers”
The most effective type of evidence is precedent which directly mirrors the action which the legislation on the table for debate aims to take.
This piece of evidence includes an event in a large company, in the United States, which raised workers minimum wage to $15/hour - the same action which the legislation being debated advocates for.
The speaker is expected to explain the results of this change in Amazon’s policies, and use the results to justify why raising minimum wage to $15/hour - as the legislation on the table does - has more net harm than net gain.
“But what they do not tell you is that in the very near future, there will be very few actual humans working in their warehouses, and rather, they will be replaced by robots.”
Clarifies the definition of automation for any judges or competitors who did not fully understand the meaning or implications of the term and concept of automation.
“What they do not tell you” is a direct support of several statements that were made earlier in the speech:
The affirmative side of the debate, as well as other proponents of raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, only help a few constituents, while hurting the rest.
The negation benefits a wider range of constituents than the affirmation.
A direct refutation of several statements made by the first affirmation speaker:
Passing minimum wage is what actually causes the market to become uncompetitive for humans, as higher minimum wage will simply encourage replacing humans with automated robots.
While 53 million Americans live near the poverty line, their opportunities for employment and improvement in their quality of life only decrease with the passage of the legislation, as the legislation directly increases their chances of remaining unemployed.
Mid-round speeches
What is a mid-round speech?
A speech that is typically given between the 2nd and 4th cycles of debate and is a combination of a constructive speech (beginning of round) and crystal speech (end of round).
A mid-round speech should contain observable refutations, but should also introduce new pieces of evidence and new arguments that have not yet been mentioned by previous competitors in order to further the debate.
The main purpose of a mid-round speech is to fill in holes in the debate or introduce considerations and perspectives that were not acknowledged by previous constructive speakers.
Who gives a mid-round speech?
There is no alteration of precedence and recency for mid-round speeches. The presiding officer will evaluate the round precedence and recency of all competitors who are standing or indicate a wish to give a speech.
The competitor with the most favorable precedence and recency is chosen to give a speech.
A mid-round speech does not favor an affirmation or negation, and can be given by either side with a similar level of effectivity.
What is the difference between a mid-round speech and a constructive speech?
Inclusion of refutation:
A constructive contains little to no refutation of previous speaker’s arguments, and rather only introduces new arguments to the floor for debate.
A mid-round speech contains a discernible amount of refutation and calling out fallacies in previous competitor’s rhetoric, though refutation should not be the foundation of the speech (unlike a crystal).
Introduction of new perspectives and stakeholders:
A constructive is meant to introduce the main stakeholders and constituents which would be most heavily affected by the passing or failing of the legislation.
A mid-round speech should not rehash the perspectives and stakeholders that were already acknowledged by the constructive speakers, rather introduce stakeholders and perspectives that have not yet been mentioned but are still significant considerations and would aid their side of the debate.
Introduction of impacts
A constructive speech is meant to introduce to the floor for debate the most important impacts that a piece of legislation explicitly constitutes within its framework and operation, and explain why these changes would be beneficial or harmful to their constituents and stakeholders.
A mid-round speech should explore implicit impacts that are not directly stated in the legislation but could result as a side-effect or after-effect of passing or failing the legislation. These impacts should be significant and relevant to constituents as well, and should be unique and perhaps unacknowledged by constructive speakers.
Weighing
A construct, because it is given at the beginning of a round, seldom contains weighing or comparison of impacts.
A mid-round speech should contain some weighing in which a competitor mentions a new impact of the legislation, and compares its values and scale against an impact which was mentioned previously.
What should be avoided in a mid-round speech?
Excessive refutation. Giving a speech that is entirely founded upon refutation is not conducive to the debate because it may mean that significant stakeholders, perspectives, and arguments go unacknowledged. The middle of the round is crucial to filling in holes and previously unconsidered perspectives from constructive speakers.
Unrelated arguments and perspectives. When searching for implicit and indirect impacts or little-known stakeholders, often time the competitor arrives at an impact which is far too obscure or distant to be relevant to the debate, to be realistically considered as a strong reason to pass or fail a bill, or requires a level of overthinking that cannot be understood by the judges. A mid-round competitor shoulders special responsibility to read through every line of the legislation provided, and understand the nuances that are included or not included with the parties and actions that are mentioned in the legislation in order to avoid this fallacy.
Impacts which only apply to an extremely small group of people. Unless the bill itself pertains specifically to a very specific and niche population, mentioning impacts which are only applicable and relevant to an extremely and irrelevant small demographic or population often are not strong arguments that further the debate and are easily outweighed by later speakers. This often - but does not always - include personal anecdotes.
Leaving a previously mentioned but obscure and little-understood impact untouched. When there is an impact or argument raised in previous speeches that seems to be misunderstood by the chamber, a mid-round competitor should aim to simplify those terms into logic that can be understood by the whole chamber - including the judges. This can often effectively be done with the inclusion of a commonly-understood analogy.
Want to see a mid round speech in round?
Watch this speech given by Grace Jackson at the 2024 EIF round robin! (Start at 2:14:55)
Example Mid-Round Speech
Nicholas Ostheimer - Tournament Final Year
Check out an example of a mid round speech by Nick Ostheimer, our executive director!
Check out this crystal speech by Arik Karim at the 2023 house final round! (Start at 2:42:48)
Example Crystal Speech
Nicholas Ostheimer - Tournament Final Year
Check out this example of a late round speech! Our check out another below where Nick actually proposed an Amendment...
Crystallization Speeches
What is a crystallization speech?
A speech that is crystallized, or simply known as a “crystal,” is one which is constructed in round, consisting nearly entirely by refuting and expanding upon arguments and evidence that was already introduced by previous speakers.
Is it true that a crystallization speech doesn’t require preparing and prior research?
No. A crystallized speech still requires knowledge on the topic of discussion, in fact even more extensively so, in order to properly tear apart faulty arguments and expand upon logical ones from previous speeches.
Additionally, a key component of crystallized speeches is to introduce new evidence to further support or refute a previous claim. Therefore, having some evidence cards and arguments ready before the round starts is still critical.
Should every competitor in a round wish to avoid having to “prep” for a tournament and get by on doing crystallized speeches, the chamber may become highly inefficient due to the lack of speakers who are willing to give sponsorships, constructives, and earlier round speeches.
When is a crystallization speech given?
A crystal is usually given later in the round, when there have already been an ample amount of arguments raised on both sides of the debate and most of the main arguments have already been introduced onto the floor for debate.
When a constructive speech is deemed to be redundant or no longer necessary for the progression of the debate on the topic, a crystal speech is most appropriate and most welcome.
This usually occurs approximately 3 cycles (1 cycle consisting of one affirmative and one negative speech each) through the debate.
Who gives a crystallization speech?
There are no limits to who can give a crystal. Any speaker who wishes to do so and is speaking at a time in the round when it is appropriate to do so may give a crystal.
A crystal speech is just as effectively given on the affirmative side of a legislation as on the negative side.
A competitor should understand how many competitors are in their chamber and approximately how many are planning on giving a speech on a given piece of legislation. They should also understand their own precedence and recency in the round - whether they are likely to be selected to give a speech at the beginning of a debate on a bill or not. If a competitor realizes that they are likely to be given their first opportunity to speak past the first 3 cycles (1 cycle = 1 affirmative speech and 1 negative speech) of a bill’s debate, then they should automatically prepare to give a crystallized speech.
What should a crystallization speech contain:
Direct-name dropping of earlier speakers. While this should be done in a respectful manner and there should never be personal attacks or comments brought into the debate, it is necessary to reference exactly which senator’s argument you are addressing, and restate their argument for those who have not been taking notes or keeping track in a detailed manner.
New evidence and arguments. To simply restate or compile the arguments of previous competitors does not constitute a quality crystal. Rather, someone who gives a crystallized speech should explain, concisely but clearly, why a previous competitor’s argument is invalid, weak, or strong.
Recap of the previously mentioned arguments. By the time a crystal speech is given in a round, more often than not, a great number of unique arguments have already been raised on both sides of the debate. The competitor giving the crystal speech can recap why all of the arguments on their side bring more benefits than all of the arguments on the opposing side, as well as fill in holes in logic and practicality that were left by previous speakers.
What should be avoided in a crystal speech:
Entirely new arguments. Adding fresh perspectives and filling in gaps on previous arguments is welcome, however in 3 minutes, the vast majority of a crystal speech should be dedicated to furthering the debate through more deeply examining the implications, limitations, and fallacies in the previous arguments.
Personal attacks or bias. While a crystal speechch contains significant amounts of refutation and name-dropping of previous competitors, do not confront the argument made by one senator for a personal relationship. Likewise, do not avoid calling out fallacies or inconsistencies in another’s argument due to a favorable relationship. Do not assume anyone’s personal status or quality while commenting on their argument that was made for the sake of the debate and the debate only. Making personal remarks or bringing personal statements into debate not only reflects poorly on the competitor, but could have implications for the target of such remarks as well.
Hyperfixation on one competitor’s arguments. While it may be true that one competitor has provided a more fallacy-filled or exploitable argument than others, it appears as a personal attack, and can be taken the wrong way if you appear to only be resolute on addressing and refuting (or supporting) the previous arguments made by one competitor. In addition, a greater demonstration of your abilities and attention to the debate is provided to the judges when you are able to address a variety of arguments that are mentioned by a variety of competitors.
Keep in mind that a crystal speech is only to be given after multiple speeches on that bill have already been given on each side of the debate!
Lack of intro or conclusion. While a 3 minute time constraint is an extremely short amount of time to refute the argument made by several other competitors, provide new logic, and explain why your new logic is correct, a speech must still appear coherent, chronological, and well-constructed. Make sure to include a brief and relevant introduction to summarize what has been discussed in the debate thus far, and a brief and relevant conclusion which effectively summarizes the arguments and logic that was utilized in your speech.
Mid Round v. Crystal
What is the difference between a mid-round and a crystal?
Inclusion of refutation:
A crystal is built upon refuting previously mentioned arguments and the majority of the speech should consist of name-dropping previous competitors and explaining fallacies in their logic. A crystal speech aims to directly address and purposefully mention the names of at least 6 previous competitors.
A mid-round speech should contain modest amounts of refutation and acknowledgement of arguments that were previously raised in order to avoid rehashing and demonstrate that attention was paid to the previous rounds of debate. However, sufficient time should be allotted to introducing new perspectives and arguments. A mid-round speech aims to directly address and purposefully mention the names of approximately 2-4 previous competitors.
Introduction of new perspectives and stakeholders:
By the time a crystal speech is given, the vast majority of the significant or relevant stakeholders have already been introduced and explained by previous competitors, therefore a crystal solely aims to explain, in response to the aforementioned competitors, why a piece of legislation benefits or harms those stakeholders.
On the contrary, a main focus of a mid-round speech is to demonstrate that a competitor has been paying attention to the debate and has a sufficient understanding of the topic of discussion to properly speak on it. Therefore, a mid-round speaker should aim to identify the perspectives which were not mentioned by previous competitors, but will also be impacted by the passing or failure to pass a piece of legislation, and should aim to utilize their speech in order to address, explain, and introduce their significance as a contention for why the bill should or should not be passed.
Introduction of impacts:
A crystal should aim to avoid introducing new impacts unless they have a highly specific, significant, and unique impact that has not yet been mentioned by a previous competitor. Rather, a crystal speech should aim to utilize the impacts mentioned by previous speakers to advocate for why passing or failing the bill would be more beneficial to helping those impacts move towards a common interest.
A mid-round speech should aim to introduce 1-2 unique but significant and relevant impacts that the legislation could bring, and that have not yet been acknowledged by previous speakers. The speech should clearly outline exactly how the passing or failing of the legislation would bring about this impact, and why the impact is significant.
Weighing of impacts:
A crystal and a mid-round speech should both aim to weigh the impacts of their argument against the impacts of the previous competitor’s arguments, and explain why their impact is more significant and favors their side of the debate.
Both should be conscious of which impacts have been raised and are familiar to the other competitors and judges.
Both should be conscious of which impacts have already been weighed, compared, acknowledged several times, and exhausted.
Both should be conscious of boundaries when weighing impacts - do not try to outweigh a competitor’s personal anecdote, do not try to outweigh human life, do not try to outweigh human suffering, do not mention someone’s personal characteristics or background when considering weighing arguments, etc.
During mid to late round speeches especially, it's easy to blend in with other speakers . This makes standing out and being unique crucial if you wish to climb the ranks of judges.