A quick conclusion that summarizes the principled and pragmatic lenses of the round, the fourth speech is a quintessential part of the debate. In this article, we provide a detailed overview of the speech.
The fourth speaker in World Schools Debate is incredibly unique. The speaker has already given a previous speech (either first or second), and is responsible for summarizing the round in their favor. This speech is the final impression for your given side in a round.
Role
The speaker has two main responsibilities. Rounds in the World Schools format are often decided on two factors: principle and practical. If a side can win both the principled perspective on a topic and the practical perspective, then they have offered a perfect case down the bench. The fourth speaker is thus required to explain how specifically their side wins on both levels.
Timing
0:00-0:15 Introduction and hook
0:15-0:45 Clarifications
0:45-2:15 Principled Clash
2:15-3:45 Practical Clash
3:45-4:00 Conclusion
Analysis
As is typical in the format, the speech should start with a quick but compelling introduction to summarize the main clash in the round. After the introduction, the fourth speaker has allotted time to give their roadmap and clarify any misunderstandings in the round by either side. Once the speaker has finished that, they move into the crux of the fourth speech, which is analyzing clash.
When discussing the principled clash in the round, the speaker should first analyze the opposing side’s principle. How do they contradict their own principle? Why doesn’t their principle make sense in the context of the round? Why is their principle uniquely harmful? Once describing the flaws with the opposing principle, briefly rebuild your own principled argument. You should always remember that the principle should not be dependent on practical outcomes. That way, even if you do not win the debate on practical grounds, you can still receive a win if you convince the judge of your principle.
After concluding the principled clash, the fourth speaker will analyze the round from a pragmatic perspective. This argumentation might require more or less time than outlined, depending on how the round has concluded. When analyzing the practical perspective, you can either outline specific, pragmatic clashes or offer a two-world analysis on why your world is preferable to the comparative.
The speech should conclude with a short conclusion that ties to the introduction and summarizes your stance.
For more information on the content discussed in this article, please visit the World Schools Resource page.
Comments