Lesson 6: Clashes and Summary Speakers

A. What are clashes?

A clash is a central point of contention between the proposition and the opposition. These can
be central questions, or themes, that help to organize the debate. Both sides will try to prove
the clash, and in the end, the side with the more persuasive arguments (and rebuttals to their
opponents’ arguments) will have ‘won’ that clash. Thus, clashes help us to adjudicate in the
comparative game of debate.

B. Types of clash structure

There can be more than one way to organize a debate into clashes. The clash is the overarching
question, into which the arguments given by both teams on that topic are then sorted. Most
of the arguments in the debate (the most significant ones) should be able to fall under 2-3
clashes. How should those 2-3 clashes (questions, or themes) be chosen in a debate? Some
examples of different ways to organize a debate into clashes include:

- Burdens in the debate

o Problem – is there a problem in the status quo which needs addressing?
o Solution – will the suggested solution work to solve the problem?
o Justification – is the suggested solution justified/ethical/moral?
o Harms and benefits – do the harms outweigh the benefits, or vice versa?
o Why specifically? – why specifically this solution, at this time, for this demographic
– and not an alternative?

- Principled and Practical

o The principled clash will ask the moral question of the debate: for instance, is this
legitimate? What are the moral obligations of the different actors in the debate?
What rights are pitted against each other in this debate?
o The practical clash will ask about the impacts of the debate in the “real world”: for
instance, what are the tangible benefits to which populations? Will there be a
backlash to this motion? What will happen on the ‘day after’ we pass this law?

- Spheres of Influence
o Divides the debate into the groups that are affected by the motion, and explores
within each “sphere” or “clash” the way in which that group is affected.

[email protected] www.cohenidov.com
 o This can go from small-scale to large-scale (for instance, in an education motion –
explore the effects on the individual child, then on the classroom, then on the school,
and finally on society at large).
o Otherwise, this can also discuss interacting spheres of influence (so on that same
education motion, we may choose to divide it into one clash about the effect of the
motion on students, another on the effects on teachers, and a third on parents).

- Short-term and Long-term

o The short-term question will ask: how will people react to the policy once it’s
announced? How will the policy be implemented? What will the transition period
look like?
o The long-term question will ask: What will be the impacts once people have
adjusted to the policy? What are some extended spheres of influence?

Note that the choice for how to divide the debate into clashes depends on the arguments given
by both teams (ensure there is enough material to cover, and that no material is left out). As
summary speakers, the clash structure should also be chosen according to what is strategic for
your team to win (more on that later).

Clash Exercise:
Project the following slide onto the board (slide available on the Google Drive), and have the
students sort the arguments according to clashes, and give titles to those clashes. Have a few
volunteers share their answers – there is more than one correct answer!

The Motion: This house believes that the US should destroy Iranian nuclear sites.

Proposition Arguments Opposition Arguments

1. An attack now would bring a small number 1. Iran just wants nuclear energy, for
of casualties, smaller than if we don’t peaceful purposes.
attack and allow Iran to develop a nuclear 2. An attack would eventually lead to
bomb. escalation and a prolonged armed
2. The US, as a leader in the free world, has a conflict in Iran, with many casualties.
moral duty to solve the conflict in any way 3. No state in the world has the
necessary. legitimacy to challenge the sovereignty
3. Ahmadinejad is the biggest Holocaust of another state so long as it hasn’t
denier in modern times, and therefore been attacked.
encourages more Holocaust denial.

[email protected] www.cohenidov.com
 4. Iran has expressly stated the desire and 4. Islam in Arabic means ‘peace’, and the
intention to develop and use nuclear regime in Iran is an extremist one
weapons, and the current regime is fanatic which has twisted a peaceful and
and serious about this. tolerant religion.
5. The sanctions are not effective, and the 5. Other states would also break into war
negotiations are at a stalemate. in the event of an attack.
6. This would send a message to other rogue 6. The price of crude oil would increase
states that we are serious, and that will exponentially.
cause them to reconsider their actions. 7. The negotiations may still succeed.

C. Weighing Within and Between Clashes

Once the arguments are sorted into the debate as clashes, how do we decide that one team
has had stronger arguments than the other team? And what happens if one team has won one
clash, but the other team as won the other clash? These determinations require the skill of
weighing (deciding what’s more important!) both within and between clashes.

- To weigh within clashes (who do we compare which arguments were stronger?):

o We can look at the amount (for instance, how many more people are affected on
either side of the debate)
o We can look at severity (how deeply each population was harmed).
o We can also look at who is impacted. There are groups in society that we may care
more about and harm to them is more important than harm to other groups (for
instance, underprivileged groups like minorities, people with disabilities or children).
- To weigh between clashes (how do we know which clash is more important?):
o We can look at chronological or logical precedence (for instance: if the solution is
shown not to work, then perhaps it also doesn’t lead to wider benefits in the
population; or for instance, if implementation of a policy will fail in the short-term,
then perhaps lovely benefits in the long-term are unlikely).
o We can look at impact (for instance: if an education motion is shown to have amazing
impact on students [one clash], but a relatively small harm on teachers [the other
clash], we may prioritize the children clash).
o We can also look at likelihood: maybe one team won a clash with bigger impacts, but
those impacts are less likely than another clash that has smaller impact.
- Be creative! There are many ways to compare and contrast arguments and clashes. Most
important – is to remember to do so, because that is how debates are won.

[email protected] www.cohenidov.com
 D. Summary speakers
The role of the summary speaker (or “whip”) is to systematically analyze the debate, in a way
which shows why their team won – kind of like a very biased journalist!

In terms of role fulfillment, summary speakers are not allowed to present new arguments in
the debate. They may, however, provide new rebuttal points, additional analysis to points
already made by their teammates, or new examples which demonstrate arguments already
made by their team.

While summary speakers may summarize the debate in any way they choose (including a
chronological summary of the main points in the debate, for example), the most effective way
for summary speakers to “whip” the debate is to use clash structure.

As seen earlier in the lesson, there can be more than one way to organize a debate into clash
structure. Given the arguments, rebuttals, and POIs given by both teams in the debate, the
summary speaker should pick the clash structure that best represents the debate as a whole
and that strategically highlights their team’s case.

For the summary speaker, the “clashes” are their arguments (within the speech structure of a
summary speaker). This means that each clash must be clearly phrased as a theme or question
(the Statement); include a strong analysis of how their team’s arguments defeat the other
team’s arguments on that clash (the Explanation), cite the specific arguments made by the
teams (the eXamples); and explain why this clash important in winning the debate (the
Connection).

[email protected] www.cohenidov.com