Monthly Archives: September 2008

Extemporaneous speaking is perhaps the most demanding of all forensics activities. It requires the research skills of a policy debater, the theory of a Lincoln-Douglas debater, and the speaking of a polished orator. However, there are a few key differences between extemporaneous speaking and the previously mentioned events. The first of which being that in extemporaneous speaking there is no one arguing against the speaker (barring a round with a built in cross examination period), thus a speaker must sufficiently address all arguments in order to have a complete persuasive presentation. The extemporaneous speech is more analytically demanding than an oratory, and its topics change every round. Perhaps, the most vital difference is the fact that an extemporaneous speaker only has seven minutes and just one speech to relay to the judge a message. The speech must include analysis that is as deep-if not more so- than a debate case, while speaking well and engrossing the judge. For unlike a debater an extemporaneous speaker doesn’t have the option to speed up to include all of his/her information. This brings up an overbearing burden on the modern speaker: how to most efficiently include arguments while not increasing the rate of delivery.

The clearest way to resolve this issue is to use substructure. Despite the way that this word strikes fear in the hearts of speakers across the nation, it is actually quite beneficial. Unfortunately, it seems that the world of extemporaneous speaking has been burdened with adherence to the universal two sub point formula. This format is highly unspecific and maybe a hindrance to effectively answering a question. The following paper will seek to resolve this particular quagmire by addressing three specific types of substructure with direct application to extemporaneous speaking. Continue reading →