“Guys what’s my intro?”: The Power of Intros/One-Liners and How to Formulate Them
Tick. Tick. Tick. Three minutes left on the timer until the opposition’s reply was over and it was time for me to close out the debate. But, it wasn't the content or strategy of my upcoming speech that worried me, it was my introduction—or rather lack of it. Yet, no matter how hard I racked my brain I couldn’t think of something witty to say about gene editing babies. Reluctantly, I took a nervous breath in and sheepishly turned to my teammates, asking the dreaded question.
“Guys what’s my intro?”
Introductions seem like a very arbitrary part of your speech, but are arguably one of the most important components. Introductions are where you can really lean into your personality as a debater and give the judges and viewers a break from the monotone energy of the round. For my team, Flower Mound Fire, coming up with introductions or witty one liners are among the most important aspects of the round because of the versatility it provides for the judges. And while yes, coming up with funny or witty rhetoric on the spot is challenging, when properly executed they can be round-winning.
So what is an introduction?
This seems like a very straightforward question, obviously an introduction is something that introduces your speech. In the context of World Schools Debate, your introduction shouldn’t just be a sentence at the top of your speech saying “so proud to propose”. It should be engaging and allude to what you’re going to talk about for the next eight minutes.
Now there are two distinct types of introductions: a) the funny/witty intro or b) the more serious/advocate intro—and there is a time and place for both of them.
Humorous introductions are more memorable, but definitely much harder to come up with. These types of introductions should either have something to do with the topic you’re debating or play off of the round that’s happening.
For example, for a motion like “THS vegetarianism,” you could joke about the topic by saying things like “peeling back the other side's arguments” or “squashing the opposition”.
On the other hand, with a motion like “THW grant an additional vote to families with children during national elections,” you could play off the round. When my team debated this as an impromptu motion our third speaker used the introduction:“Just like the children for which they advocate, side prop is both misinformed and underdeveloped”. Now this type of intro is a bit on the bolder side meaning you could get down voted by certain judges. However, it was appropriate for the round considering that both teams were going back and forth with the playful banter.
That is another thing that is very important when coming up with introductions based on the round. You have to be able to read the room and adapt properly, whether that means being funny or serious.
On that note let’s talk about serious introductions.
These types of introductions aren’t ones I would go for right off the bat. To have well executed, powerful lines of rhetoric at the top of your speech means you have to wait for the round to play out in order to find out what you are feeling so impassioned about.
For example in the motion “THR the rise of fast fashion,” by the end of the debate all anyone is talking about is worker exploitation. Here is a time where I think it would be more beneficial to lean into the fact that you care for these kids and your side of the house best protects them.
But, how do you come up with good intros?
Honestly, this is something I don’t really know either. There isn’t a set formula to come up with introductions or witty one liners. But, here is one thing that can help: don't be afraid to use canned intros/one liners.
Using canned rhetoric is typically frowned upon, but when done correctly it can be an easy way to get a room's attention with something that makes you more likable. To come up with canned intros, our team focuses on two things: 1) jokes we can make from reading just the motion and 2) jokes about what the collapse of the debate will probably be.
For example, for the motion “THO lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary,” we used rhetorical introductions like “Proposition is guilty of x, y and z”.
Using canned intros can sometimes help alleviate the pressure of coming up with something witty in round while still having that comedic effect.
In saying all this, it is important to be cautious of when you use canned intros. Reusing the same lines of rhetoric is often more harmful than beneficial for a couple of reasons.
Your judge is probably annoyed because they’ve heard that line so many times
The audience doesn’t get as ‘hype’ for you (more on this in the next section)
Other than that, coming up with introductions mid round is something that comes with time and practice. But once you have mastered that skill, it’s smooth sailing.
And finally, how does it help you win rounds?
While intros may not seem like a big deal, having pockets of your personality embedded into your speeches often makes you a more likable person and can help a judge want to vote for you.
For example let’s look at this year's national finals PF round. Southlake Carroll (National Champions) had all of these rhetorical aspects to their speeches on top of their content. Instead of just starting their speeches they’d say “let’s get the party started” and made sure cross examination was enjoyable to listen to as well. Now obviously PF is pretty different from World Schools but it goes to show how fun intros or one-liners can help you win big.
Now part of the reason intros can help you win is because good intros or one-liners often get your audience knocking or rooting for you. Don’t ever undermine the importance of an audience rooting for you, because most times judges can feel that energy and can be more inclined to vote for the more personable, charming side.
But the most obvious reason you want to use intros like these is to capture your judges attention. Most high stakes elimination rounds happen late at night or after a long day of debating, and chances are no one is really interested in a dense topic about finance or whatever it happens to be. But by using lines of rhetoric in your favor you quickly diversify yourself from other speakers and give judges another option to vote for.
All this being said, it is not your job as a debater to change yourself to get a judges vote. And as corny as it may sound, this activity is really about being yourself and if judges like that, yay! If they don’t, that’s okay too!
