Signposting

What is Signposting?

A standard tool for beginners, but still a usefully adaptable one for experienced debaters. Beginning debaters are commonly provided with quite detailed speech scaffolds to help guide and organise their thoughts. The complex combination of skills involved in piecing together a debate speech— perceptive evaluation of real-world social issues, logical argumentation, careful listening, and on-the-spot responding—can overwhelm students and therefore formalised methodologies can be useful in helping to enable them.

Signposting is a series of speech ‘flags’ that signal each stage of a speech.

These speech flags are a simple aspect of methodology that provides a set of clear labels for the various speech steps. The advantage of using signposts lies in the fact that they provide the speaker with a defined reminder to address each aspect of their task in the ‘right’ or normally accepted order.

A disadvantage of signposting is that its use can become repetitive and metronomic for both speakers and adjudicators. As debaters gain experience, they often want to throw away signposting because they feel they know what they’re doing and its use has become redundant or tedious. They also tend to have so much more to say that they drop rote structures, thinking it will free up time for content. These responses are perfectly understandable—the situation is similar to removing the training wheels once a kid can freely ride a bike—and some able debaters are able to structure their speeches flexibly yet with continued clarity without standard markers.

It’s also true, though, that quite talented speakers tend to lose their way when they drop even these basic supports. As speakers take more liberties with structure, the tendency for rhetorical flourish to overcome organisation, and then for ideas to become muddled and repetitive is all too common. For this reason, signposting can play a role in experienced speakers keeping a grip on their material. It also plays a useful role in making it clear to adjudicators when you are moving from one aspect of a debate to another.

Signposting has two distinct aspects:

• External (methodological reminders for the speaker, and step signals to the other team and adjudicator)

• Internal (reminders intrinsic to creating effective argumentation for the speaker)

What an effective use of Signposting looks like

1. For greeting

No greeting is necessary or advisable in debating. Everyone knows who the speaker is, and what their role and the topic are (these details have just been given by the chairperson). Avoiding such formalities isn’t rude—each speaker’s job is to make the most of their speaking time by expressing the ideas central to their case and the debate discussion.

2. For context

Coming, as it does, as the first step for both sides in any debate, signposting isn’t necessary for this important task. The purpose of an opening context is to establish (first) why the issue identified in the topic is important and relevant, and (second) the basic issue both sides can agree on before moving on to discuss which policy is better suited to deal with it. Contexts therefore give room both for a concise statement of principle, and a reasonable definition of what will be under discussion in the debate.

In the past, instead of this kind of context, teams were widely coached to devise a sentence (often rhyming) that was meant to capture the purpose of their case—this was called a case line or team line. At its worst, every speaker repeated this line at the beginning of their speech, after every argument and rebuttal and at the end of their speech. This kind of metronomic signposting is always best avoided.

3. For a model

Obvious though it may be, stating Our model will... remains a quick and straightforward external signpost for the action plan that will implement the topic policy. (The kind of simple practical add-ons that help define the scope of a case make it pretty clear, though, that this is the stage the speaker is at. Learning the direct words, though, remind the student to actually include the task.)

4. For allocation

Direct and simple external signposting is always useful for allocation without having to waste time using the term itself.

I will talk about... (two or three concise labels)
Our second speaker will talk about... (one or two concise labels)

5. For arguments

Traditional external signposts such as Moving on to my points or, more pretentiously, Turning to my substantive achieve the useful task of making it clear that the speaker is shifting to the next step in their speech. A simple and direct signpost is:

Now for my 3 arguments: Firstly...
Secondly...
Thirdly...

The virtue of this sort of approach is that it reminds everyone, including the speaker themselves, that they have a staged plan they will step through.

Phrases such as I have (insert a number) proofs for my argument or Our change will have positive effects because... or This is wrong because... or This is likely because... are are valuable internal signposts for any argument because they set goals and reminders for the speaker to elaborate, interpret and explain.

6. For rebuttal

Again, it is useful to make an external signal for this new step with a phrase like:

The opposition argued that...

Again, a succinct heading with the relevant number is very useful.

3 responses: Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly...

7. For signposting an ongoing argument

If the opposing team has countered an argument, and it remains in contention, then a way to respond would be:

We’ve heard pushback on our argument that... (with a brief argument label, ‘pushback’ description, and number of responses.)

8. For a summary

Now for our summary... is an external signpost. Sometimes teams are coached to list each of their speakers’ arguments in order, but such summaries are of little value unless they add matter. Making a comparison of both teams’ cases, though, is always a powerful internal signpost. Doing this while avoiding unnecessarily detailed repetition of material is valuable. In this way, it is possible to make an overall evaluation of what is still in contention in the debate and then deal with each of those issues.

One simple comparative internal signpost is:

Our outcomes are... Their outcomes are... Therefore...

Or:

Using comparison for each rebuttal is also a powerful internal signpost. Instead of assertive phrases like, The opposition was wrong when they..., it is useful to incorporate their putative outcome, The opposition claimed the benefit of... and then contrast it with an explained harm in that outcome, or greater benefit in your own.

In our world... In their world... Therefore...

Overall takeaway

The value of using simple external and internal signposting for experienced debaters lies in maintaining a clear structure that enables the ideas being expressed. It reminds them of the various elements key to an effective speech and the internal tasks that are part of each of those elements. It provides a clear path for the speech that is also readily intelligible for the adjudicator (and the other team). And it helps the speaker avoid hyperbole, repetition and waffle, and thereby also free their mind to employ targeted and balanced rhetoric.