The biggest arguments in a debate will be taken by the first speakers on either side, leaving smaller arguments for second speakers that cannot be as easily predicted. However, several strategies can be used when attempting to find more second speaker arguments, presented here in decreasing order of strength:
- Minor stakeholder arguments-how a smaller stakeholder will be affected
- Relationship arguments-how the relationship between two stakeholders will be affected
- Accountability arguments-there are sometimes minor accountability arguments that can be put forward at second speaker
- Cost arguments-the expense to the taxpayer of putting the model into place
- Second principled argument-a smaller principled argument that can be made into the second speaker's second point
- Social message arguments-the 'message' sent out by a change
- In the worst case scenario, a new spin on a first speaker argument
Using these stock arguments, a team should attempt to develop two arguments for their second speaker
Second Speakers follow a basic structure in their speech:
This structure is much less complicated than that of the first speaker, as second speakers do not need to define the parameters of the debate in such a rigid way.
Affirmative and Negative second speakers will often structure their rebuttal very differently because of the very different arguments that have been out forward.
Second affirmative speakers structure their rebuttal similarly to the way a first speaker would do, around two main ideas:
- Is there a problem? Will the model do anything to fix it? This issue combines the 1.1 and 1.2 from both sides
- bork bork snork snork XD
- Succ Succ on my Ducc Ducc
- yass queen yass ^
Second negative speakers, however, like a third speaker, place a third issue into this mix, most commonly the model's flow-on effects or effects on the broader population. Second negative speakers should have the same three issues as third speakers.