Alternate (Sub)Structure? Yeah Right

strategyBy Omar Qureshi

An Extemper’s dilemma

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.

PS-IR

Primarily, it is imperative to address International Relation (IR) Theory and Political Study (PS) Theory.  The natural difference between the two is that IR is an evaluation of the interconnectivity of political interaction amongst nations and institutions whereas PS is an evaluation of the causation of a situation (economic, political, or social) based inside of a nation or more specifically an institution.  Both theories are critical to an effective extemporaneous speech; however the biggest challenge that remains is how to effectively plug this analysis in.  Former NFL Champion in International Extemporaneous Speaking, Spencer Rockwell, expanded upon this dilemma:

The paradox, however, once again invites a topic by topic approach to deciding not only when, but also how to use IR… best. [1]

It is this dilemma that must be alleviated in order to develop a sound point within an extemporaneous speech.

The most efficient way to use IR and PS is at the beginning of an individual point.  By explaining theory first and demonstrating the impact on the topic second a speaker maximizes the depth of an argument immensely. In this scenario, the judge will understand the purpose of what is about to be said before it is discussed. This comes in direct juxtaposition with the alternative of the judge becoming unsure of purpose until later in the point. For example, if the question being asked was “Is Nepal’s young democracy developing effectively?” an effective way to plug in PS would be as follows:

Point 1: The government has failed to instill institutions necessary to ascertain social justice.

  1. Importance of social justice with respect to democracy (PS)

“Women’s rights remain critical to the idea of democracy as becoming the will of the people… Without appropriate education for women they cannot engage effectively in an advanced economy crippling hopes of being legitimate democratic state.”

Sex and Social Justice, Martha Nussbaum[2]

B. Nepal has failed to provide women with adequate voting rights

“42% of women allowed to vote”

-NYT May 11, 2008[3]

C. No education available to women

“Women schools are crumbling.”

-Asia Times July 7, 2008

The benefit of using this specific model is that it can be applied to all three points in a speech.  Of course, the task of reading the material necessary to make a three point speech with specifically sourced theory built into each point is quite daunting.  While making a speech that uses this IR or PS framework in all three points is impressive, this isn’t to say that it is the best way to advance an argument.  After all, mixing this substructure with equally deep substructure within the other two points also can make quite the statement.

Case Study

Case Study within extemporaneous speaking is something that must be done very carefully. However, when done appropriately an area of analysis that uses the case study format can show that the speaker has a vast array of knowledge while also bringing depth to a speech.  This type of analytical formatting is certainly not necessary in all speeches, and should only be used when the topic demonstrates the need for it.  For sake of consistency, the question being asked is still “Is Nepal’s young democracy developing effectively?” and case study substructure could be used as follows:

Point 1: Corruption remains rampant at every level of the government

A.     Maoist connection with narcotics hurts parliament

“Maoist position in new parliament is corrupted by ties to drug lords.”

-Alan Johnston, the Brookings Institution, May 3, 2008

B. Treasury department accounting flaws

“Treasury has no account of over $3 billion of tax money”

-Bloomberg July 3, 2008

C. Local courts are easily bribed

“No accountability for judges- taints 73% of court cases”

-Economist February 22. 2009

All it would take is a brief explanation at the beginning of the point about corruption being a hindrance to democracy and this point can easily flow within a speech.  However, speakers rarely use the case study substructure within the context of a country specific speech.  Rather, this substructure is typically used in reference to international institutions to demonstrate a speaker’s knowledge of different global events and their impact in reference to an institution.  A clear example of this can be found in the 2005 NFL National International Extemporaneous Speaking Final Round where National Champion Kevin Troy answered the question “Is the U.N. mankind’s lone and best hope?”[4] Kevin answered yes and his first area of analysis used excellent case study substructure:

Point 1: International challenges demand global cooperation

A. Diplomatic Conflicts

“Entangling WW1 alliances engulfed in war- UN brings nations together

without those alliances.”

New World Order, Ann Marie Slaughter

B. Humanitarian Arenas

“Darfur, AIDS, Poverty all require global cooperation”

-World Policy Journal, Spring 2005

C. Terrorism

“There must be cooperation to stop transit of nuclear weapons.”

Nuclear Terrorism, Graham Allison

Once again, the speaker is faced with a major challenge using this type of substructure: time.  Each area of analysis in an extemporaneous speech should be around 1 minute and 30 seconds (give or take a few), as such that gives less than 30 seconds for each sub point after the introductory sentences.  Nonetheless, it can be done with a little bit of practice.

Counterpoint

The final bit of alternative substructure can be found as a bit of a mix between the aforementioned two.  It is the counterpoint substructure.  All argumentation should include an acknowledgement of opposition, and without realizing it most extemporaneous speakers address the opposition within the context of their speech by bringing up arguments that naturally stifle the claims of opposition.  This being said, the counterpoint substructure is tremendously beneficial to take rhetorical prowess to the next level.  This substructure explicitly sources the opposition and proceeds to disprove it.  For this example, the question being asked is “Should nuclear energy be pursued to fight global warming in industrialized nations?”

Point 1: Nuclear Energy is beneficial to the environment

A.     Human Danger (Opposing argument)

“People are endangered by the threat of nuclear fallout which offsets the environmental benefits.”

-The Heritage Foundation, October 2011

B. New technology is very safe (Counter Argument)

“Newly developed technology decreases the chances of nuclear fallout by

96%.”

-Scientific American, November 2011

C. Comparatively effective

“1 pound of uranium 235 produces 2 million times more energy than 1  pound of coal.”

-Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Spring 2008

By using counterpoint substructure, a speaker can eliminate the doubt or preconceived notions a judge may have through an effectively tailored argument; all while still developing a new argument as well.  This type of substructure is crucial in order for the judge to continue following the speech even if they disagree with the material, as it is the only type of substructure that specifically addresses his/her concerns while also maintaining consistency with the speakers answer.  When used well this is a clear way to diffuse common concerns.

By the same token, it is very important to address the opposing argument in either the first sub point or the second. The justification for this is found within the mindset of a judge. Disenfranchising a judge for any period of time in a speech puts the speaker in a bad position.  In addressing the counterargument early in a point and disproving it later the speaker can entice the judge to continue listening.  While it may not seem this way at a tournament, the judge ought to be the speaker’s ally.

Conclusion

Alternate substructure is by no means a call to rebel against the traditional sub point system. Rather it is an enhancement to the system.  It provides clarity and an intrinsic connection to a judge on a structural level so as to supplement delivery.  Substructure is by no means a panacea to all extemporaneous woes, but it is certainly a necessary tool for an excellent speaker. Speech making is always quite the challenge, doing it in 30 minutes often seems impossible, but this challenge is the reason extemporaneous speakers put in the work.  Truly a melting pot of many events, extemporaneous speaking is one of the most prestigious of all forensic activities.  With an effective substructure the event is only enhanced.


[1] Rockwell, Spencer. “Get IR Done.” Rostrum. February 2007. 23 July 2008. <http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/0207_025_026.pdf>

[2] All books sourced within this essay are real books and are available at bookstores.

[3] All articles sourced within this essay are not real, and were used explicitly for example purposes.

[4] This final round video is available with Dale Publishing. <http://www.dalepublishing.us>

This entry was posted in Strategy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.