posted 6th January 2025
Thinking of opening a hotel? Be sure to hire the most charming receptionist you can find; you want to make a good first impression. Planning to include a restaurant? Encourage the chef to focus on puddings; get them right and your guests will be sure to leave with a good feeling.
First impressions and last impressions tend to stay with people longer than whatever comes in the middle. That’s why it’s vital to get the beginning and ending of your speech right. So what makes a good beginning and what makes a good ending?
Some debaters are so excited about what they want to say that they launch straight into their first argument with no introduction. That’s a mistake. Listeners (including the most important listener, the judge) will feel overwhelmed by all the detail and will find it hard to follow what you are saying. Instead, slow down. Start by introducing all of your arguments briefly but systematically. If you are the first speaker, also introduce your partner’s arguments. The listeners will know what is coming, and will be able to hold your arguments in their minds more clearly, making them more likely to understand and remember them. This will make your arguments more persuasive; no one was ever persuaded by an argument they couldn’t understand, still less by an argument they couldn’t remember.
How to finish? As with the best kind of pudding, you want to leave the taste of your arguments lingering in the listeners’ mouths. So don’t just finish off your last point and stop. Remind them of what you just said, again briefly but systematically, ensuring it settles and stays in their minds. If you are the first speaker, slip in a teasing trailer for your partner’s points.
How might this sound in practice? Here’s the beginning and ending of a speech by first proposition for the motion This house would introduce 100% inheritance tax on estates over £1 million. (That is, you would be allowed to leave up to a million pounds to your children or other heirs; after that, all the money would go to the government.)
Beginning
‘Inheritance tax at 100% on estates over £1 million is right both practically and morally. I will be arguing for the practical benefits, and my partner will be making the moral case.
Here are the practical benefits of this tax. First, it will incentivise wealthy people to spend money during their lifetime, thereby boosting the economy. Second, it will incentivise the children of wealthy people to be more dynamic and hardworking, as they will not be able to fall back on their inheritance. Third, it will be a valuable source of income for the government at a time when public services are in desperate need of repair. My partner will make the moral case for this tax, showing how unfair the status quo is, as it rewards people simply for happening to have wealthy parents, and how much fairer society will be when everyone starts from more or less the same place.
So, how will this tax stimulate the economy? It will …'
Ending
‘So, I have shown you how a 100% tax on all estates beyond £1 million will stimulate the economy, encourage dynamism and innovation, and revitalise the public sphere. My colleague will be going on to show how it will also build a fairer world.’
See what the speaker did there? A clear introduction and a crisp summary make it much easier to remember and understand the arguments for upping inheritance tax, thereby making them more persuasive. Take time and trouble over a clear introduction and an efficient summing-up; it’s worth it.
