You are on page 1of 1

Nama : Alit Wahyuningsih

My Role as Second Speaker

For everytime I practice or join a debate competition I always in the first speaker. In 12
grade I never practice even more join a debate competition because of UN preparation so it
feels so strange when I start practice debating again in my first meeting in UDS. At that time
my role was Deputy Prime Minister and amazingly I enjoy it so much after about two years of
my role in the first speaker (although it still feels strange because a long time not practice in
debating). Now I want to learn a new role and a deep more about second speaker.
So I think the main role of second speaker consist by three point. First, second speaker
must to give rebuttal for the first negative’s major argument if in the affirmative side and could
also rebuts first affirmative if possible when in the negative side. The way we deliver our
rebuttal must be clear so we have to point out how many and what the point of our rebuttal
before we talk in to the detail of our rebuttal. Beside that second speaker must answering the
question that given by the first speaker of negative team or second speaker of affirmative team
if they questioning anything. After that we can also briefly restates terms the affirmative’s or
negative’s team case that already delivered by our first speaker to reinforces the idea. Just to
make it clear what is the clashes of the debate by comparing what the negative team said and
where the first affirmative team stands about if we are in affimative side and vice versa.
Second role is deliver substantial argument. This should be given more time about
delivering new argument without repeating the same argument from the first speaker. This
chance about reinforces the argument of the motion with different side. Usually if the first
speaker already talk about the social and economy side about the motion, second speaker tend
to give the future implication if the motion is applied or not (if the motion is a proposal), or
giving another alternative what will happen if the motion is only a value judgement debate.
Then we compare the solution that given by our team or another team (base on affirmative or
negative side) with the status quo, which condition is the best. This part is show how well we
can elaborate the arguments about the motion beside what already said by first speaker.
Lastly, if we already delivered the rebuttals and new arguments, and there is enough
time, we can provides a brief summary/recap of the speech. It makes our rebuttals and our
arguments sounds clear and it also helps the adjudicator identify the content of our argument.
Those are what the second speaker must deliver in debate. Now I think the point that I
need to improve is when giving rebuttal. Giving rebuttal at the major point of opposite team is
crucial. It proving that our team’s arguments is better than the argument given by opposite team
and that is why we do not stand at that side by giving reason why their argument is wrong. But
since it needs a fast and practical thinking, I find it harder to give rebuttals than giving
arguments. When we are giving arguments, we have time for preparing the argument and
discuss it with our team so that the argument can support each other. But when we are giving
rebuttal we usually can not predict it and must to give it the moment that the opposite team
delivered their argument. At the same time we should hear the arguments, write down the main
arguments and think why that arguments will not work in reality. That is why I need to practice
a lot to think faster in order to improve my ability to give rebuttals. Last but not least, I still
must learn how to speak english fluently and control my nervousness.