Role of Speakers

Roles of speakers mostly depend on the format. However, there are some common characteristics of certain roles of certain speakers which will be briefly discussed here. A more comprehensive explanation of the roles of speakers will be given in separate lectures about the formats.



First Speakers
The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their team's cases. This involves outlining the case, i.e. providing a definition (if Affirmative) or accepting/challenging the definition (if Negative), presenting the theme line and team split. After the first speakers have spoken, the main direction of each team’s case should be apparent.
However, it should be noted that 1st speakers also must deliver substantive arguments supporting their case (i.e. the 1st speaker's split). The 1st Negative speaker must also present some rebuttal to the 1st Affirmative speaker
.
Middle Speakers
The middle speakers usually deal with substantive arguments, plus a little bit of rebuttal against the previous speaker. This really depends on the format, though, so it will be explained in separate lectures about each format.

Rebuttal Speakers
Although rebuttals are also done by substantive speakers (except the 1st Affirmative), most formats provide a role of rebuttal speaker (also called the whip), which usually falls on the last speaker.
The role of the rebuttal speakers is simply this: Attack! Rebuttal should ideally be carried out on two levels: on a global level (teamwise), a rebuttal speaker should attack the opposing team’s whole case, pointing out the major flaws in argumentation and logic. On a more detailed level (speechwise), a rebuttal speaker should be able to point out the mistakes of each individual speech.

Reply Speakers
The role of Reply Speaker is excusive to Australasian and Asian Parliamentary debates. Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply speech. The Negative team delivers the first reply speech. Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased adjudication.
A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case. It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However, the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame.