2.2 Introducing the Affirmative Case
Writing introductions is difficult. Until you know all the details of your case, it is difficult to determine what you should accentuate in your introduction. Also, it’s easy to get bogged down or frustrated writing your speech if you start with the introduction. It’s often best to do the introduction last–unless inspiration has already struck!
When you are ready to start your introduction, there is one point that you never lose sight of: the introduction does not constitute part of your argument. It is essentially rhetorical, meaning that its purpose is to persuade though means other than argument. Your goal is to encourage the audience to be receptive to your case, and to interest them in what you have to say.
Your introduction will have maximum effect if it is memorized–or at least delivered without looking at your notes. Audiences get distracted easily, and if you can look at each person while you start your introduction, you will hold their attention. This doesn’t have to be for too long, since no one wants to be locked in a stare-down with a speaker (or for that matter, watch the speaker stare at someone else). Beginning your speech without looking at your notes conveys confidence in your case as well as command of the material. It also eliminates an excuse for people to look away, because as soon as you look down at your notes, people will get distracted. This might happen anyway, but the odds of keeping their attention are highest if you keep them in your gaze.
Having to memorize the introduction should not scare you. This is because it is short–and because it is rarely essential that the words you use be identical to the words you wrote in your case. A good introduction is 30-45 seconds, which may seem short, but it is about 10% of the total length of the first affirmative speech. It is long enough for you to make a point, but short enough to prevent listeners from becoming bored.
Some people like to begin with a quote. Generally, the shorter the better. It helps if you can say something interesting about the quote to get the audience’s interest. For example, in a debate about the abolition of capital punishment, a debater began: “As Patrick Henry once said, ‘give me liberty or give me death.’ I’m changing one word: Give me liberty and give me death–because the death penalty is essential to preserve Americans’ liberty from terrorism.” That’s it–the introduction was ten seconds long, right after which the debater went into his case, which (not surprisingly) was that the death penalty should be retained for terrorists. But he had made his point effectively, increasing the audience’s interest in the audience he was about to make.
Often debaters select specific examples that support one of their contentions, usually their first (because otherwise the audience may forget your point.) Here’s the negative’s introduction from the debate about cannabis legalization:
“What started off as a normal day for Morgan McCoy turned into a death scare. Morgan discovered her once energetic toddler unresponsive, the life in her son’s body slowly fading away. At the emergency room, the doctors came across lethally high levels of THC in his bloodstream – the unfortunate aftermath of confusing marijuana gummies for candy. Although he survived, his family was aware there was a strong possibility that he wouldn’t. That heart-wrenching day will be forever embedded in their minds. While some take pleasure in the temporary high, the lives of many others are forever changed. This pain will only amplify with increased access to marijuana.”
Note that the introduction used a name. This is because studies show that people respond more sympathetically to a discussion about a specific person than about a generic individual. It also gives the debater a convenient way to refer to the introduction later in the debate: “Remember the story of Morgan?” Just don’t overwhelm the listeners with names. Two or three is about the limit before they start getting confused. Also, since memory is limited, you don’t want to have your listeners waste valuable attention remembering names when you really want them to remember your arguments.
Another technique involves using a vivid image. Both debaters did this in the debate about the Refugee Protocol. The affirmative envisioned an overcrowded lifeboat and asked when it was ok to turn a drowning person away. The negative described a horrible prison in El Salvador to which the US had recently sent someone who claimed political asylum. Both sought to evoke emotional responses, even though the tone of the debate was not founded on sympathy.
Another successful technique is interjecting a personal perspective on the topic. This doesn’t mean you have to have stories about what happened when you tried pot or suffered persecution. The perspective you present could be that of a family member or a friend. People are more interested in listening when they can relate to the connection you identify.
If none of these options generate ideas for a good introduction, see if you can find a surprising statistic or study. The goal is to get the attention of your audience, make your point, and move on to the next section–the interim.
