Finally, that idiot's speech is over. The Prime Minister has given you one of the worst definitions of all times to work with. How did she manage to pull that off? Is that all she could come up with during her preparation time. Anyway, time is of essence here. Deciding to do your best with what's been provided to you, you accept the definition and move on with your speech. Your next few steps are critical, not just for the seven measly minutes of your speech, but for the course of the round as a whole. A powerful speech can corner your opponent to the point that she loses the debate. Lets examine some of the underpinnings of a strategic speech and see how clever maneuvering will give you the edge in this round.

One of the first things a good Opposition Leader does, is to implement an "Opposition Philosophy". An Opp. Philosophy, regardless of whether it's used consciously or not, decides which parts of the Government's case will be attacked. This selective procedure inspects the enemy's force, finds flaws in their defenses, and directs the weight of your speech to those areas where your opponents are most vulnerable. More help on inspecting cases is given in our Logic tutorial.

While deciding upon your Opp. Philosophy, you might decide to keep in mind the Government side's burden of proof. The proposing side has to prove their case in order to win this round. The opposition, on the other hand, only needs to disprove the Government's case.

That being said, let's have a look at the tasks ahead, in no particular order. You have to refute all of the arguments made by the previous speaker. That will leave the case construct with no positive reinforcement. As long as there are no reasons for this motion to pass, you'll be standing on the winning side of the debate. There are two ways of rebutting an argument. One is by showing that the proposed motion will not have the beneficial effects described by the Government. The other way is by showing that even though the proposition's case will have the effects they described, those will not be beneficial at all.

Along with explaining why the arguments provided by the Prime Minister to support her case do not stand, you should bring forth reasoning against the proposition itself; explaining why the Government's motion should not pass. These independent points of analysis will deliver a harsh wound to your opponents' case, while at the same time adding to the next speaker's burden.

Having done all these, you'll be seizing a tactical advantage that will help you time and time again in this round. Your opponents will see their case crumble right before their very eyes, as your rebuttals begin to pour in through the cracks...