Embedded Files
Sponsorship Speeches
Sponsorship Speeches
A sponsor begins a debate. They set the groundwork for every other cycle on that legislation. They are the foundation. A good sponsorship speech sets the round up for success and leads them in the right direction, while a bad one may push the round astray.
The sponsor is one of the most important speeches in a congressional debate round. They’re easy to get down, but difficult to master. This guide seeks to teach you how to perfect the practice.
In the eyes of many debaters, the sponsorship is argued as an “unstrategic speech.” It has no refutation, no interaction, and its arguments are often lost in the mud of the mid-round.
However, this analysis is imperfect.
A sponsorship is important and necessary to a debate round. A spectacular sponsorship is one that can easily get you ranked highly and break out of a tough outround. And most importantly, it is not something you should do alone. In each round, you have the potential to give 2 or more speeches. If one is a sponsorship, the other should not be, simple as that. Pairing a sponsor with a mid-round or a late-round speech is the #1 step towards standing out when it may otherwise be difficult to do so, and is both recommended and encouraged.
If that is to be the case, sponsors have a unique advantage not present elsewhere in the round. If you give a sponsorship on the first bill, you will have great precedence through the second bill and can speak wherever you want. If you speak later on the first bill, you may be forced into giving another late speech that you may not want to give because of your poor precedence... sponsorships offer you a way out. Their perception as unstrategic means that you may be the only one who wants to give the first affirmative speech of a bill, and simply calling for dibs at the onset of the round is oftentimes enough for nobody to contest you.
Sponsors aren’t only not unstrategic, they’re some of the most strategic speeches you can give. But they only work if you can master them.
Learn more from this slideshow about early round speeches!
Here, Breck goes over the basics. If you need more on basic early round structures, check out the authorships and sponsorships page.
The full structure for sponsorship speeches is a little more in-depth, but it’s nothing out of the ordinary.:
Attention-Getter and Introduction
POINT 1:
Problem with the Status Quo
Solution to the Problem
Impact of the Solution
Rhetorical Transition
OPTIONAL POINT 2:
Problem with the Status Quo
Solution to the Problem
Impact of the Solution
Conclusion with Tieback to Introduction
Again, this structure is nothing out of the ordinary, but every step must be done well in order for a sponsor to truly stand out from the crowd. Below is an explanation of how to do so successfully.
Structure
Every congressional debate speech has a structure, and the sponsorship is no different. Generally speaking, it follows the same structure as all other early-round speeches, with one notable exception: you can give 2 contentions. By no means is this a requirement, but it is an option that, in many cases, can be beneficial to your speech (and thus, your ranks). If you have enough information through your problem and solution blocks, 1 point can be enough. But without refutation and only a single impact, it may be difficult to fill the entire 3 minute timeframe, in which case 2 contentions are not only allowed, but preferred.
Introduction
The introduction is one of the most important parts of any sponsorship. It’s how you get the judges’ attention, and maintain it for the remainder of your speech. A good introduction sets a story for the remainder of your speech, something that is far more important in a sponsor than in any other speech.
Overall, your introduction introduces 3 things to a judge, those being: your thesis, your theme, and you! Here’s a quick breakdown of what those mean.
First, your thesis. This is basically your 1-2 contentions in the sponsorship speech. If all you have is one point, make sure that the introduction covers that. If it covers two points, you have a couple of options. The most common option is to say it in the same way you would for one point, that is:Â
First you affirm because of xyz.
It’s because this bill protects/fights point 1 and point 2 that I urge you to affirm.
Either way, this quick sentence comes at the very end of your introduction, right before your transition into the first of those points. The second way, which is more preferred although also more difficult to execute, is for the points to follow a common theme. For example, you could give 1 contention about how a bill prevents hurricanes on the east coast, and another point on how it helps fight wildfires on the west coast.Â
The second thing that should be introduced is your theme.
Especially in a sponsorship speech, you should have a common theme throughout the speech, integrated at every part possible. As a few quick examples, you could mention a book in your introduction and transition by “turning the pages” or “moving to the next chapter.” Alternatively, you could focus your theme around a time machine, where you “travel to the future” or “turn back time to a year of importance.” The possibilities are endless, but it’s up to you how to frame it in the best way for your speech.
Lastly, your introduction should introduce you as a personality. In a debate, you can come off in any way you may like. Many debaters appeal to a minority group they are a part of, whether that’s immigrants, women, African-Americans, or any other group you identify with. This appeal can be extremely beneficial in both your introduction, as well as your contentions as a whole (typically, your impact is about how a bill positively or negatively impacts said group).
Alternatively, you can introduce yourself in a way that focuses on a specific personality, whether comedic or serious. This could be done by focusing your introduction on a key American value and the immense gravity of that pillar in American society... from which you can impact to how legislation would affect that pillar. For a more funny approach, you can use past experiences (they can be falsified if needed), and connect that to the bill.
Examples of introductions
Probably the best (or at least the most well-known) example of this is Luke Tilitski’s speech from the 2018 NSDA Senate Finals, which he went on to win. Here’s the beginning of his introduction, where he lays out his thesis.
“The United States can determine its foreign policy blueprint for the Northern Triangle from El Salvador’s national motto: Liberty, Union, and God.”
In that example, he outlines his 2 points (“God” was used as the speech’s conclusion) for the speech using the thesis of El Salvador’s national motto. If there is a situation where an integrated thesis works for your speech, go for it every time.
Below are some examples of how to use that persona successfully from Harvard’s Final Round in 2022. The first is a modified attention-getter from Jimmy Baek’s sponsorship speech on a carbon tax.
"From the civic responsibility of our constituents to vote, to our responsibilities as Representatives on this floor, American democracy has always been about the responsibility we hold to each other. And yet, whenever our constituents home’s are swept away in a hurricane, that very pillar seems to crumble."
The introduction below is from Sasha DiMare in the same round. While her speech was not a sponsorship, the attention-getter follows many of the same ideas one might aspire to have in that setting.
“In chemistry, I learned that carbon is the backbone of life. But even as someone who has failed a few tests, and still can’t seem to take notes on chemistry in my love life, I can still tell that the chemistry behind this bill is an equation for success.”
Whatever your persona is, it’s important to keep your introduction relevant. Most commonly, this is the subject area of the debate. But alternatively, it could be the location of the tournament (or the location of a bill’s implementation, if it’s foreign policy). It could relate to another speaker in the round, or anything else with unique circumstances in that situation.
As a final note on introductions, there’s a couple of things that are important to remember. First, they should be between 20 and 30 seconds long, leaning on the longer end for a sponsorship speech. But most importantly, don’t read your intro! If there’s any part of your speech that should be memorized, especially a sponsorship, it’s your introduction.
The problem (status quo)
Once your introduction is out of the way, it’s time to get into your first point, and that starts with the problem. Specifically, it starts with the claim. As one key difference between the sponsorship and every other speech in the round, the legislation being debated is yours, and should be addressed as so. As a quick example, it might go something along the lines of:
First, pass my bill to help low-income Americans.
But with the quick claim out of the way, the problem becomes the single most important part of any sponsorship speech. It’s the most unique compared to any other speech, and the part that will help most when attempting to stand out by giving a sponsorship. As the sponsor, you need to set up the debate for everyone that comes after you. Show that there is a problem, and that it requires solving.
Even a basic-level understanding of a topic may be required to both be given and backed up with sources. For a carbon tax speech, don’t just say that carbon emissions are increasing, prove that they are causing climate change. Remember that most judges haven’t done research on the legislation themselves, so you are the first person to tell them about it.
The status quo should be one of, if not the longest part of a sponsorship speech. By fully contextualizing the current situation, you make it that much more difficult for negation speakers to refute your point. The more everyone understands about the current situation and problem, the better. You need to prove that a problem exists, and also why it exists, as that step sets the stage for a successful solution.
The Solution
Once the problem has been established, it’s time to solve it. In this case, that means passing the bill. Nothing is out of the ordinary for a sponsorship speech in regards to evidence, warranting, and everything else typical of a solvency block (if you need a refresher, check out the page on “Basic Argumentation”). That is, with one notable exception; expert advocacy.
In reality, no matter how much research you’ve done, studies you’ve analyzed, or understanding you have on a piece of legislation... you’re still a high school student, and a judge doesn’t trust you as much as they would someone with a PhD in the area of debate. Expert advocacy solves this dilemma. Simply, your sponsorship speech should include an “expert” that is advocating for the same solution outlined in the bill. This source isn’t quantified and doesn’t prove your argument any more than your other sources do, but it’s the most unique and important part of the solution block of a sponsorship speech.
Contrary to how one might signpost other pieces of evidence, the focus for expert advocates comes from the expert themselves. That means, instead of saying “a study by Harvard University found in 2022...” a sponsor would instead say “John Smith, a Professor of Latin American studies at Harvard University wrote in 2022 that...” The more prestigious and recognizable your expert advocate is, the better.
Impact
No matter if you give two points or one, your impact should remain singular for a sponsorship speech. If you’re only delivering one point, it would go at the end as it would in any other event, but in the special event that you choose to give two points, the impact would go at the end of the second one, where it would serve as an impact to both points, linking their solvency blocks together.
Linking solvency blocks together is best done when the solutions relate to one another. If one of your solvency blocks proves that people spend more money on small businesses, and the other is that those same small businesses save money, it’s a good idea to find a card that takes both of those factors into account in regards to the impact. This could be done by taking the numbers from the solvency blocks and relating them to jobs created through quantified evidence. However, finding that specific research isn’t always possible, which is why you could instead show how small businesses are beneficial at-large (jobs, innovation, etc.).
Other than that, impacts are the same. There is no measurable difference between an impact in any other early-round or mid-round speech with that of a sponsor, outside of the fact that there isn’t refutation and that they aren’t as drawn-out. Instead, the impact should be the shortest part of a sponsorship speech. If you need a refresher on impacts generally (including those of sponsorships), check out the page on “Basic Argumentation.”
Rhetoric
Rhetoric is important in any speech as a way to make you stand out, but nowhere is it more important than in the sponsorship. Here, you should work to tie everything back to your introduction. If your intro mentioned a book or author, talk about turning the page to a new chapter. If you talk about a time machine, you can travel into the future. And when mentioning any other anecdote, follow something step-by-step. For example, when debating a minimum wage, give your first point about what happens immediately after the company hands out its first increased paycheck, and the other point about the impacts on the business years into the future when the effects are full-swing.
The goal with any rhetoric line is to come off as powerful and in control. Like there is something that needs to be done. Every speech should have rhetoric lines, but they’re often associated as an ending to refutations, meaning that they can be difficult to place in a sponsorship speech.
Probably the best place would be in-between your two contentions. This can be a little tricky because an emotional impact doesn’t make for an easy transition to powerful rhetoric. Another good place is between the problem and solution blocks. This is great because it means you can contextualize a bad situation without using evidence, yet still coming off with just as much power.
For example, if you want to talk about a lack of regulation, mention the regulatory measures in place around the world, and then call the place without such measures “the wild west.” Sure, you could have said that the US (or whatever other country you’re talking about in regards to foreign policy) doesn’t have any regulations in that industry. But calling it “the wild west” makes people understand you that much better, especially after giving the regulatory context in other countries that allow competitors and judges to understand the exact area you’re referring to.
The last place you should have rhetoric is after your impact. Here, you’ve already done your job in taking the point and showing how it helps or harms real people. From there, you can emotionally appeal through that impact and give overall strong rhetoric. Here’s an example of what that might look like from Joey Rubas in the 2022 TOC Finals:
“Small businesses run by moms, dads, and families are without a doubt the heart of economies. They’re the essence of who deserves our dollars most.”
Note the use of the repetition in similar-sounding words between “deserves” and “dollars.” Small things like that are an easy way to elevate your rhetoric to the next level.
Outros should be framed in the same way as both your speech’s rhetoric and introduction. While you may be able to get away with not tying your rhetoric back to your speech’s theme, the same cannot be said for the conclusion. Here, you can in large part repeat your introduction with some minor modifications. However, significant additions to the introduction are preferred if at all possible. Here’s the conclusion from Joey Rubas’ speech mentioned earlier (2022 TOC Finals):
“Fine, Rep. __________ deserved employee of the month. They make a seriously good panini. But when we’re trying to rebuild broken communities, businesses like these are exactly what we need. Affirm.”
In the introduction of that speech, Joey had mentioned working at the same summer job as another Representative in that chamber, relating that to helping small businesses at-large. Here, he tied that back with a new piece of information: that the other Representative had gotten employee of the month and that they make a good panini. This small comedic line is an easy way to tie the outro back and give a successful conclusion overall.
Final Appeals
Some tournaments have worked to fight against the stigma of sponsorship speeches by giving sponsors another opportunity to speak at the very end of a bill. This speech, popularized by the Harvard Invitational, is known as the final appeal. Simply, it’s your chance to refute other speakers, since that wasn’t originally available as the first speaker in the round.
Final appeals work as a crystallization speech. You shouldn’t be introducing new arguments or groundbreaking evidence. Instead, you should take the prior arguments of the round and convincingly tell the judges that the affirmation has successfully refuted, outweighed, turned, or otherwise won the debate.
Because final appeals are only 1:30 instead of 3:00 in duration, it will be a shorter speech overall. Thus, your introduction should only be a quick one-liner and nothing more. Your outro should be nonexistent, a simple “pass my bill” will do. For a more in-depth explanation of how to write and deliver final appeals, check out the page on “Mastering Crystallization Speeches” and modify as needed.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse