In public forum debate, the summary speeches are a critical turning point in the round. Only two minutes in length, your summary speech is a crucial bridge between your team’s first two speeches and your final focus. Since you will have heard your partner refute the other team’s case in his/her speech and because two crossfires will have taken place before your summary, you should have a good idea of which arguments you are ahead on and which you might be losing. In the summary speech, you should begin to focus the debate on the key issues necessary for you to win. Follow these steps to make your summary speech spectacular!
1. Briefly Sum up the Debate
Your summary should begin with a very brief overview of how you see the debate playing out. Remember not to cover every little disagreement – this is a summary, not a line-by-line refutation. In your beginning overview, present the fundamental thesis of your case and give brief reasoning why you believe you will win the debate. For example, begin your summary by saying, “The pro side has convincingly argued that providing universal health insurance to all Americans will drastically reduce deaths from illness that are preventable with simple medical care. The con side will not be able to show disadvantages to this resolution that outweigh its benefits, and we will therefore win the debate.” Remember to keep your overview short and simple, hit on the key reasons to vote for your team, and show why the other side’s arguments aren’t enough to win them the debate.
2. Answer Key Arguments
Because the final focus must concentrate on the reasons to vote for your side and often does not allow time to answer the other side’s arguments, the summary speech is your last chance to refute your opponents’ arguments. You will be pressed for time in your summary speech, so you should not try to answer every point your opponents raised in their second speech. Instead, focus on the one or two of your opponents’ arguments you think are the strongest, and answer them. Don’t worry about going “line-by-line,” just refute the central ideas behind your opponent’s arguments.
Remember not to spend time summing up the other team’s arguments before you answer them. Don’t say, “In their second speech our opponents argued that universal health insurance would cause a massive increase in claims which would impair doctors’ ability to treat patients quickly and effectively – our first response is…” By referencing your
opponents’ argument in such detail you do them a favor by reminding the judge of the argument and wasting your own speech time. Instead, restate your argument first and then show how it answers your opponent’s argument – without spending too much time
summing up the other side’s argument. Instead of the example above, try saying,
“Empirical studies from Canada’s health care system demonstrate that universal health insurance raises the quality and efficiency of health care. This PROVES that their arguments about health care quality are false.” Only restate the bare minimum of their argument to let the judge know what you’re responding to. And remember to restate your argument first – doing so sounds powerful and gives your argument credibility.
3. Develop Old Arguments
If the other team has a particularly good response to your case in their second speech, you may need to rebuild your original arguments a bit in your summary speech. Remember not to spend too much time rebuilding old arguments – do just enough work to repair the damage your opponents have done to your case. Also, you should only focus on rebuilding arguments central to your case, or arguments that you could lose the debate on. This will prevent you from spending unneeded time on issues that aren’t of central importance to the debate. When rebuilding an argument, consider bringing up a new piece of evidence,
quotation, or statistic that supports your original claim and responds to your opponent’s objection. Considering the example about universal health insurance above, you might rebuild your case by citing a new study or poll that responds to the con side’s argument about health care quality. This is not a new argument because it rebuilds your original argument (that universal health insurance will benefit America’s health care system), and because it responds to your opponent’s argument. Because the debate will likely come down to whether or not the judge believes universal health insurance to be beneficial, this is a good part of the debate to rebuild by citing additional evidence in the summary speech. Be careful not to spend too much summary time rebuilding, though – the point of the summary speech is to begin crystallizing the round for the judge and to emphasize the key issues your side is winning.
4. Watch out for New Arguments
Your summary speech is not a time to bring up new arguments. Besides being disallowed by the rules, new arguments in summary speeches put you at a disadvantage. Your summary is already pressed for time – answering the other side’s arguments, rebuilding your own, and providing an overview of the round and its important issues are all
important jobs for the summary speaker. Bringing up new arguments will merely waste your time, and will not give you a strategic benefit because it is unlikely that your partner’s final focus will be able to elaborate on your new arguments and use them to your team’s advantage. It is best to stick to extending, clarifying, and improving on arguments already in the debate in your summary speech.
So, how do you tell if an argument is new? Easy. New evidence, reasoning, facts, statistics, opinions, and support of all kinds are welcome in the summary speech so long as they are linked to arguments already in the debate. Before making an argument, ask yourself, “Does this support a point made in our case or in my partner’s second speech?” If
so, go ahead and make the argument. If not, it’s probably new. For example, if your case supports ending the death penalty and your first speech argued that the death penalty is ineffective at deterring crime, arguing in the summary speech that the death penalty is racist would be a new argument. On the other hand, arguing that the death penalty has been proven not to reduce the murder rate in states that support it would not constitute a new argument. In this case, your argument directly supports your original claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent – it merely uses a new piece of evidence to support this original claim. Sometimes the distinction between a new argument and merely new evidence is blurry and hard to define – in these cases, err on the side of caution and only make arguments that you feel directly tie to your original case.
5. Weigh the Other Side’s Arguments with “Even If” Statements
Once you’ve provided an overview of the debate, developed your side’s strongest arguments, and answered new arguments from the other side’s second speech, the final task of the summary speaker is to sum up the debate. Before you give the judge a final picture of the debate, however, it is important to take care of the arguments you could potentially lose the debate on. If you want to make sure that you win a public forum debate, you must show the judge that even if the other side wins all of their arguments, the judge should still vote for you. You can do this in your summary speech by making “even if” statements. In other words, show that even if your opponent’s arguments are found to be true, they are not strong enough to overcome your case. Show how your case is so strong that it overcomes whatever flaws the other team can isolate. Here is one example of such an “even if” statement: “Even if the con side wins that some people’s insurance claims will not be adequately responded to, we have shown that on balance a universal health insurance system would vastly improve on the status quo’s health care system. Even if the resolution is not a perfect solution, we have shown that it offers substantial improvement over the status quo.” Even-if statements are a great way to show the judge your understanding of the debate as a whole. They demonstrate that you know you can’t win every argument on the flow, but at the same time you know which arguments are the important ones to win and you are confident that you will win them. Even-if statements put the other team in a tough position – they force the other side not only to win their arguments, but also to prove why those arguments matter enough to warrant a ballot. Remember not to overuse even-if statements, though – only use them on arguments you think you could lose the debate on.
6. Sum Up the Round
The final thing you should do in your summary speech is exactly what the name implies: provide a concise and powerful summary of the debate’s key issues and why you believe your team should win. The conclusion of your summary speech should make the other side’s final focus as difficult as possible – prove why a vote for your side is the only way to solve the problems you’ve identified and why your side should be endorsed despite whatever consequences the opposition might counter with. Your conclusion should be rhetorically powerful – focus on the most convincing points in support of your stance and show the judge why consideration of your arguments should come before all else. Think of your conclusion as writing what you would want to see on the judge’s ballot as a reason for decision. Also, don’t just restate the overview of the debate you gave at the beginning of your summary speech. Your conclusion should show the judge the implications of voting for your side – what would the world look like if the resolution were to come into effect, and why is this a
good or bad thing? Why is the resolution something the judge should support or negate? Your conclusion should provide clear and convincing answers to these questions.