
In any debate the position of summary speaker is, in theory, the easiest position on the table. There is no need for the speaker to bring in new material (ie new arguments), and the speaker that is summating has the entire debate to think about which of the opposition’s arguments they need to rebut.
In reality, it can be quite difficult to sum up a debate. The most obvious reason for this is that, unlike other speeches, they are very difficult to structure effectively.
In all debates the final speaker on each side of the debate needs to sum the debate up, or summate. In the Mace style, there are two designated summary speakers. In British Parliamentary style, the fourth proposition and fourth opposition speakers are supposed to sum up the debate.
There are two ways to structure a summation speech. The first is to adopt a ‘speaker by speaker’ approach, whereby the speaker who is summating assesses the speeches of each speaker in the debate (both proposition and opposition) in turn.
Alternatively, a summation speaker can structure their speech thematically, and deal with the major issues of ‘clash’ in the debate. The 'speaker by speaker' method is the easier of the two but a thematic summation is a more effective way of summarising the major arguments used by both sides. Therefore, it is good practice to summate thematically.
When a summation speech is organised thematically, there are no hard and fast rules on how it should be done. In general, however, the following is a useful outline.
Contradictions - sometimes necessary
Major themes of the debate - always necessary
Peroration - if time allows (peroration = the concluding part of the speech in which the speaker recaps and emphasises the main points)
Summation speakers should look for contradictions between speakers on the other side of the debate. If they can expose inconsistencies in their arguments, it weakens the credibility of the other side’s case altogether.
In all debates there will always be several different arguments upon which the debate has been based. The single most important job of the summation speaker is to clarify these arguments, and to explain why their side won on all of the substantive points.
In the debate ‘This house would abolish school uniform’, the major areas of clash could be the areas of individual rights, functionality of uniform and school culture.
Summary speakers need to deal with the broad themes involved in the debate. In this debate, the three areas are of equal importance and therefore the summation speaker should spend roughly equal amounts of time on each area.
In other debates, such as ‘This house would introduce the euro’, the debate might revolve around a number of themes such as:
In such a debate, it would be reasonable for the summation speaker to spend more time on the issue of economic efficiency in their speech as this is the largest and most important issue in the debate.
It is not essential for a summation speaker to oppose everything that the other side says. For example, it is difficult to deny that entry into the euro would, initially, be expensive for the UK to implement. However, proposition summation speakers could argue that this undoubted cost would be outweighed by other long-term benefits.
As the summation speaker concludes their side’s case, their peroration can be particularly effective. The final minute of the summation speaker’s speech will be the last thing the judges and audience hear from that side of the debate. So it makes sense to be as convincing and persuasive as possible.
How to assess progress: