Dr.Iain
Strategies: Impromptu Speaking Structures
Impromptu Speaking is one of my favorite Speech and Debate categories. It demands critical thinking, quick decision making, and creative idea-mapping. The real-world skills it develops extend from classrooms to board rooms to social interactions.
While there are some well-known techniques that most participants quickly learn (fill your five minutes by giving an introduction, three points, and a conclusion; speak dynamically, confidently, and fluency; physically move between your major points to hold your audience’s attention), other key differentiators aren’t so obvious.
As a result, many young Impromptuers are frustrated by their lack of consistency. On the other hand, some competitors are too consistent: they memorize three examples and give the same points, regardless of how loosely those ideas connect to their prompt. I’m here to suggest three new ways of structuring your speeches to broaden your approach and expand your perspective on this category.
#1: LENSES
Tired of hearing about Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, and some other young adult novel every round? Switch it up by diversifying the mediums of your three examples!
HOW TO ROADMAP: “We’ll see how this applies across three different lenses: first, history. Second, literature. Finally, psychology.”
A GOOD WEBSITE TO RESEARCH: Look at TV Tropes, a website which shows how various cliches can be found in all sorts of media.
#2: SCALE
Are you told that your examples all ‘feel the same?’ That may be because you’re referencing people who all accomplished similar things. How many speeches have you heard about three determined folks who were able to invent something great, despite the world saying ‘no’? Change it around by referencing the scale of the examples!
HOW TO ROADMAP: “We’ll see how this applies on three different levels: first, the individual level. Second, the interpersonal level. Finally, the institutional level.”
A GOOD WEBSITE TO RESEARCH: Look at Listverse, which publishes top 10 lists. Look towards their SCIENCE -> HUMANS section to find ‘individual’ examples, their GENERAL KNOWLEDGE -> HISTORY section to find ‘interpersonal’ examples, and their SOCIETY section to find ‘institutional’ examples.
#3: ARGUMENTS
A great Impromptu is a lot like Original Oratory: there’s a clear beginning section, an easy-to-follow structure, body paragraphs, and a powerful conclusion. What separates Original Oratory from Informative is the element of persuasion. Too many Impromptus have unpersuasive theses. You’ve heard so many speeches just ‘talk about’ the topic instead of establishing a lesson or moral. This structure ensures that you’re standing up for a point of view, not just throwing out disconnected ideas.
HOW TO ROADMAP: Your thesis needs to establish that there’s a societal problem. For instance, you might interpret ‘connection’ to mean that there is a lack of connection. “First, we’ll see why so many of us are disconnected. Second, we’ll analyze the harms of a disconnected world. Finally, we’ll seek a solution.” (Cause, effect, solution.)
A GOOD WEBSITE TO RESEARCH: Go to the National Public Radio (NPR) website and listen to the podcast Hidden Brain. This podcast is structured similarly to an Oratory/argumentative Impromptu: it gives causes (philosophical, sociological, or scientific reasons a problem exists), effects (examples of how the problem is bad), and solutions (how we can fix this crisis).
If you want to try out these structures, think about the most recent Impromptu you gave. Regive it three times, sticking to the same prompt but altering the speech’s structure. See what feels the most interesting. Keep it fresh, fun, and forward-thinking! Good luck with your Impromptu adventure.
Strategies: Spontaneous Argumentation Structure
At first glance, the platypus is an odd mishmash of various creatures: it has a duck’s bill, a beaver’s tail, and an otter’s feet, and a chicken’s eggs. Spontaneous Argumentation, or SPAR, is the platypus of Speech and Debate. Is it a Speech event that primarily rewards dynamic speaking, fluency, and rhetoric? It says ‘argumentation’ in its name, so how much do your logical arguments really matter?
SPAR isn’t offered by the major national competitions (the National Speech and Debate Association, Tournament of Champions, and National Catholic Forensics League haven’t included it), so there aren’t many videos to learn from. However, it’s an exceptionally popular category amongst elementary, middle, and local high school competitors. It develops critical thinking, practical persuasion, and listening skills. For that reason, it’s one of the most accessible and useful categories.
While the time limits vary between regions and tournaments, SPAR generally asks students to do three things: construct a case, question an opponent, and refute an opponent’s case. Here’s a checklist of ways to structure your SPARs so you bring in the ‘best of both worlds’ and appeal to both Speech- and Debate-oriented judges.
#1: CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH CHECKLIST
Your delivery should be crisp, clear, and professional. Speak loudly and assertively--just a barely faster than you would in an Original Oratory. There are three parts to this speech:
INTRODUCTION:
Give a small hook to earn the audience's attention.
State your topic/side.
Preview your main two-three points.
EACH POINT:
S - make a statement/claim/what you're trying to prove.
E - elaboration - explain the logic behind your claim.
E - exemplify - give an example to prove your claim is true.
I - illustrate - illustrate why this statement matters by using a metaphor/analogy/powerful rhetoric.
OUTRO:
Restate your main points (briefly).
End strong, asking your judge to find in favor of your side.
#2: QUESTIONING CHECKLIST
There are four key tenets of Cross-Examination: clarify, challenge, confirm, and control.
FIRST: clarify what your opponent said. For instance, “Let’s talk about your first point. You talked about how cats are more independent than dogs, correct?”
SECOND: challenge their logic or evidence. “Many people choose pets specifically because they want a kind, loyal, dependable companion, don’t they?”
THIRD: confirm their position if they're trying to avoid the answer - respectfully. “I’m sorry, but that didn’t quite answer my question. Yes or no: some people prioritize loyalty and dependability in their pets?”
FOURTH: control the flow of the debate by moving on to another issue. “Thank you. Do you have a question for me?”
#3: REBUTTAL CHECKLIST
Just like your constructive speech, a SPAR rebuttal should have three parts. Remember to be confident, chipper, and comprehensible.
INTRODUCTION:
Make an attention-getting observation about the SPAR. There are two easy ways to do this: either reference something that happened during questioning or bring back a hook from a constructive speech.
Restate your side.
Preview your speech (you'll address their points and then yours).
REBUTTALS:
Mention their claims.
Challenge each claim's statements (the statements may be untrue), elaborations (their logic may be faulty), examples (their examples may not support their claims), or illustrations (their metaphors may not support their sides).
OUTRO:
Briefly restate your key points.
End with powerful rhetoric for your side. “Because I stand for truth, justice, and wellbeing, I am proud to negate.”
SPAR isn’t purely Debate or Speech: it’s a happy, healthy, educational combination. I hope these strategies help you along. Happy SPARring!
Strategies: Interpretation Checklists
Even actors with years of experience can struggle when they dive into the world of interpretation events. I remember watching perfectly good performers fail to rank above third place in a round, no matter how well-memorized or polished they were.
If you’re someone who feels like they’ve hit a ceiling and don’t know if they want to stay in interpretation, you’re not alone. I’ve heard from dozens of students who don’t know how to get better. That’s why I’ve decided to compile a list of questions that judges often take into consideration when watching interpretation rounds (Humorous, Dramatic, DUO, Programmed Oral Interpretation, Storytelling, Declamation -- you name it!) . Whether you’re jumping into interpretation events for the first time, or you think it’s time for a tune-up, here are some tools to help you break through that ceiling and reach another level of interpretation success.
QUESTION #1: WHAT’S THE POINT OF THIS PIECE?
All of the best stories aren’t just entertaining--they’re educational. They have a message. We learn something, consciously or not, from them. Sometimes, this is obvious (think about Aesop’s Fables). Every now and then, it’s not as clear (dozens of authors have tried to pick apart the philosophy of Peanuts). But, as an interp competitor, it’s your obligation to choose a piece that has “something to say” about a societal problem.
Dramatic Interpretation tends to tackle heavy issues (ableism/racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia, death/loss, assault). Programmed Oral Interpretation often involves a more specific take on a Dramatic Interp topic (you wouldn’t choose something as a broad as ‘discrimination’ - you might bring light to a very specific experience, like the 2017 NSDA National POI Champion; he argued that we must confront the stigma suffered by queer black men living with HIV/AIDS).
Even Humorous Interpretation and Storytelling need a clear moral. The 2016 NSDA National HI Champion used comedy to argue that living our lives in fear and allowing anxiety to dominate our actions causes misery. The 2020 NSDA National Storytelling Champion contended that retelling classic stories to call attention to their hypocrisies can expand our perspectives.
If your piece doesn’t have an argument--if it has nothing to say about the human condition--it will almost certainly fall short of the pieces that do.
QUESTION #2: WHY DO YOU CARE?
It’s not enough to choose a piece with a good moral: this message has to matter to you. In fact, if you don’t communicate it, you have no guarantee that someone else will. Selecting source material that you really love makes a tangible difference. Don’t go with the first selection you find online. Don’t create a carbon copy of some national finalist’s speech. There is nobody in the world exactly like you and there will never be anybody else in the world exactly like you. Showcase your unique spirit by choosing a DI or DEC with a message about a larger societal issue that strongly resonates with you. Select a Storytelling that helped define your childhood. Your purpose and passion will pay off.
QUESTION #3: ARE YOU OPTIMIZING YOUR TALENTS?
There are a lot of amazing skills that you can showcase in a performance. Do you have a talent for beatboxing? Can you do a really good Obama or Trump impression? Do you have a background in dance or martial arts? Are you a whistling virtuoso? Select a piece that allows you to display these abilities, because many judges are drawn to the ‘wow’ factor.
The 2020-2021 season should allow you more flexibility than ever before; the NSDA’s ‘approved website list’ has been taken down. This means that just about any published piece of material is fair game for interpretation. Reimagine what’s possible!
QUESTION #4: ARE YOU OPTIMIZING THE MEDIUM?
I worked with a fantastic interper who awed his audience by scripting in a segment where he walked directly up to the judges and treated them like ‘characters’ in his piece. When he could no longer do this in person, he adapted his approach to the digital world--he got up uncomfortably close to the camera for that scene.
The champion of several HI national-level competitions has adapted their piece for cyberspace by weaving in and out of frame and playing with perspective. The 2020 NSDA National DUO champions make exceptional use of the camera frame when transitioning between scenes. It’s remarkable. We’re in a renaissance of Speech and Debate interp creativity.
I hope these strategies have helped move the gears of innovation. Good luck wowing your judges and staying true to your message!
Strategies: Platform Speaking Drills
One of the most common pieces of feedback I’ve given to Original Oratory, Expository, and Informative competitors sounds something like this: “When I heard your topic, I was curious about [a piece of evidence the speaker didn’t include]. You might consider including it!”
After years of coaching these pre-written speeches, I’ve found that many inexperienced speakers don’t take a lot of time to broaden their knowledge base when drafting their presentations. They either settle for whatever’s on the first page or two of Google or over-rely on common knowledge. That isn’t the best way to go about things.
Judges tend to respond to a three-step strategy: first, hook your audience with something entertaining or provocative. Then, make your audience feel comfortable by giving them something they expect. Finally, take your audience on a journey into more challenging territory by asking them to consider connections that aren’t readily apparent.
Here are two drills you can use when constructing your platform speeches that can preempt common judge critiques about your research and example selection.
DRILL #1: SOURCE-STORMING
Share your script with a peer as a Google Doc. It’s okay if you only have your topic/thesis idea ready.
Set a timer (5 to 20 minutes, depending on how quickly you can process information).
During that time, find as many examples/sources that might apply to your topic. Take them from everywhere--popular culture, Wikipedia, psychology today, the news. Copy-paste both the link to the source and a sentence-long description of what the source says in your Doc.
After you have a sizable list of sources, think about where they could go in the speech. Could something become part of an introduction/hook? Could this evidence help prove WHY your problem hasn’t been solved yet, or HOW to solve it? Not everything is usable, but two heads are better than one when it comes to research!
DRILL #2: PLATFORM SPAR!
Once you’ve settled on your topic and thesis, you need to think about the other side of things. If you’ve chosen a topic about a problem that hasn’t yet been resolved, it’s probably because a sizable number of people a) haven’t thought about the problem, b) don’t care that much about the problem, or c) don’t even see the issue as problematic. You need to convince them.
For this experience, you’ll be on the Affirmative side of a mini-debate (a SPAR). The resolution is your thesis (for example, “we need to disconnect from technology more often”). Your partner will be on the Negative side of that topic.
Take one minute to prepare. Then, you’ll have two minutes to deliver a concise constructive speech in favor of the subject. Your opponent will then have two minutes to cross-examine you about your arguments. Next, they’ll give a two minute speech in opposition; you’ll have two minutes to cross-examine then. Finally, you and your opponent will each have a minute to conclude.
This technique will help you flesh out your real presentation by taking counter-arguments into account. Judges appreciate open-mindedness. Many national champions have a segment right before the solution section where they supply a disclaimer. “I’m not saying X or Y...what I am saying is Z.”
Hopefully, these techniques will give your platform presentation the shot of energy it needs to put on a magnetic, empathetic, well-researched show!