Contents of Speech in Debate

Definition
Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined by the Affirmative team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments and different interpretations from both teams of what is actually being debated among them.
The definition should take the motion as a whole, defining individual words or phrases only if they have a key role. Out of the definition should come a clear understanding of the issues that will be fought over in the debate.
Always keep in mind that a definition must be reasonable:
•    it must be debatable (i.e. a reasonable opposition exists);
•    it must have a clear and logical link to the motion (i.e. it is not a bizarre distortion of the motion).
This is not to say that an Affirmative team may not choose an unusual interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.
The Negative, in general, must accept the definition made by the Affirmative, but the Negative shall have the right of challenging the definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set out above. However, a Negative team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological, Squirreling, or Time and Place setting (see Advanced Issues).
If a Negative team accepts the definition, they only need to say so, and it is unnecessary to restate it. If the definition is accepted, then that definition must stand. The Negative must adjust their case to that definition.

Theme Line
The theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a team’s stand on the motion. A theme line can be viewed as a ‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it concisely explains a team’s strategy in defending or negating the motion. The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team member. It is the main idea that links together all speakers, ensuring consistency among speeches. All arguments brought forward in the case should be based on the theme line.
A theme line is basically an abstract idea, but a formulation of it would make life easier. A theme line should be kept short, and it may take form of words/phrases, a single sentence, or an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism.
In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: why is the propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or false)? Without further explanation, this propositional statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the assertion given by the motion (as it is defined).
In most Parliamentary debates, both the Affirmative and the Negative team must have cases. This mean that the Negative team should also have a theme line that opposes the motion (as it is defined) and clashes the Affirmative's case. Usually, the more apparent the clash is, the more interesting the debate is going to be. Failing to clash the Affirmative's case increases the risk of the Negative team losing the debate, because it is the job of the Negative to oppose whatever the Affirmative is trying to say.

Team Split
Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to decide on how the arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is called the team split. For example, in an Australasian or Asians Parliamentary debate, the case is split between the 1st and 2nd  speakers.
There are many ways to make team splits:
•    splitting by different aspects, e.g. philosophical vs. practical, political vs. economics, etc.;
•    directly distributing the arguments to the speakers, e.g. case has 5 arguments/points: 1st speaker will deliver point 1 and 2 while 2nd speaker will deliver point 3, 4, and 5.
In making team splits, consider the time available for the speaker to develop the arguments. For example, a first speaker's split is usually smaller than that of the second speaker's, because the first speaker will also need time to present the outline of the case.
Often there are issues not strongly related to the proof of the case which need to be delivered, such as background information, historical analysis, or elaboration of a proposal. Explaining these issues will also take time, so consider them when making your split.
You should make sure that each individual speech by itself proves the motion. You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.
In British Parliamentary format, the first speakers of the Closing teams are expected to make what is called an extension of the case outlined by the Opening teams. Making an extension is similar to making a different split (more information will be given in a special lecture for this format).

Arguments
Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. facts, examples, statistics, references to experts, etc.) to back up each point you make in your argument. Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your argument.
A good paradigm for delivering good arguments is the A-R-E: Assertion - Reasoning - Evidence. First, state the argument. Then, elaborate the logical reasoning of why the argument is true. Then, throw in relevant evidences to back up the argument. Don't forget to link the argument to what you have to prove (i.e. the motion/theme line).
Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet to be proven to be logically true, while arguments must have supporting logic and evidences showing its validity.
Evidences support an argument, but they do not replace the argument itself. A logical explanation must still be provided in order for the argument to work. You cannot argue by examples alone. Similarly, something that an expert once said is not guaranteed to be true.
Aspects that adjudicators look for in a good argument are:
•    relevance — link everything back to the topic;
•    consistency and internal logic — don't contradict yourself or your teammates, avoid logical fallacies, etc.;
•    clarity — arguments should be easy to understand;
•    effective use of evidence — evidence must be relevant, always prefer stronger evidence, etc.;
•    organization — structure your arguments.
One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true.