You are the main speaker in a debate on the topic: Learning about the past has no value to those of us living today. Write your speech for or against the motion.
This task tests your ability to write a formal debate speech: a persuasive argument delivered aloud to an audience, following the fixed conventions the examiner expects. A top-band speech is marked on three things at once: the correct debate format (salutation, definition of the motion, a clear stand, signposted arguments, rebuttal, and a rousing close), the content (well-developed, relevant points supported by examples), and the expression (persuasive, grammatical, register-appropriate language with rhetorical devices). The model below argues against the motion, that is, it defends the value of learning about the past.
Model speech (against the motion)
Mr Chairman, accurate timekeeper, distinguished panel of judges, my worthy opponents, co-debaters, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I stand before this honourable house as the main speaker to oppose, with every fibre of my conviction, the motion that states: "Learning about the past has no value to those of us living today."
Before I advance my arguments, permit me to define the key terms. To learn about the past means to study history: the record of the deeds, discoveries, triumphs and blunders of those who lived before us. To claim this learning has no value is to claim that a people can walk wisely into tomorrow while wearing a blindfold woven from ignorance of yesterday. That, ladies and gentlemen, I firmly and respectfully reject.
My first point is that the past is our greatest teacher, for it warns us against repeating costly mistakes. As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to relive it. When the world studied the horrors of the two World Wars, it built institutions to restrain nations from sliding into such slaughter again. When public-health authorities remembered how earlier epidemics spread, they were quicker to isolate, to trace and to vaccinate. The past hands us lessons whose tuition fees have already been paid, in full, by others; only a foolish student throws such lessons away.
My second point is that the past is the taproot of our identity. A tree that is cut off from its roots may still stand for a while, but the first strong wind will topple it. So it is with a people. Our languages, our proverbs, our festivals, the sacrifices of our founding heroes: all of these reach us across time. When a Nigerian child learns of the heroism of those who fought for our independence, that child gains dignity, direction and a sense of belonging. Cut away the past, and you cut away the very self.
My third point is that every achievement we enjoy today rests upon the shoulders of the past. The doctor who saves a life with modern medicine builds upon centuries of earlier study of the human body. The engineer who designs a bridge relies on principles discovered and refined long ago. Even the smartphone in your pocket is the grandchild of countless past inventions. To despise the past, therefore, is to saw off the very branch on which the whole of modern progress is seated.
My fourth and final point is that wise planning for the future is impossible without the past. How can a traveller chart a safe road to a distant town while pretending the journey has never been made before? Governments study past economic collapses to steady today's markets; farmers study past seasons to plant with confidence. The future, ladies and gentlemen, is a house, and the past supplies its foundation stones.
My worthy opponents may rise to argue that we must fix our eyes only on the future and let the past bury its dead. But I ask them this simple question: with what wisdom will they build that future, if not the wisdom the past has painstakingly gathered for them? Their argument is a ladder with the bottom rungs removed; it promises to lift us high, yet gives us nothing on which to climb.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I have shown that the past teaches us, roots us, lifts us and guides us. Far from being worthless, learning about the past is one of the most precious inheritances any generation can possess. I therefore urge this honourable house, without hesitation and with one loud voice, to reject this misguided motion. A people who forget where they are coming from will surely lose their way to where they are going. Thank you, and long live this great house.
Why this earns top-band marks
- Format and vocatives: it opens with the full, correctly ordered salutation (Mr Chairman, timekeeper, judges, opponents, audience), states a clear and early stand, defines the motion, signposts each argument, includes a rebuttal, and ends with a firm, rousing conclusion and a closing courtesy.
- Content: it develops four distinct, relevant points, each supported by a concrete example rather than bare assertion, and answers the opposing view directly instead of ignoring it.
- Expression: it sustains a formal, persuasive register and uses rhetorical devices, the rhetorical question, the tree-and-roots and ladder metaphors, and the emphatic call to the "house", which lift ordinary prose into true debate language.
Examination takeaway: in a debate question, the marks are lost far more often on missing conventions than on weak ideas. Always open with the correct vocatives, declare your stand at once, define the motion, develop each point with an example, rebut the other side, and close with a memorable rallying line. Choosing to argue against this motion is easier to support with evidence, so the stand chosen here is the safer, stronger route to full marks.
