Forensic Speech Structure Skill
DECISION POINTS
Format Selection Tree: Choose structure based on audience and time constraints:
IF legal/judicial context:
├─ IF <10 minutes → Classical 5-part (abbreviated)
└─ IF >10 minutes → Classical 5-part (full)
IF policy/legislative context:
├─ IF formal body → Congressional format
└─ IF advocacy → Policy debate format
IF public/corporate presentation:
├─ IF <15 minutes → TED-style structure
├─ IF hostile audience → Classical (heavy refutatio)
└─ IF neutral/friendly → TED-style or Congressional
IF competitive debate:
├─ IF policy debate → Plan/Inherency/Harms/Solvency
└─ IF parliamentary → Classical 5-part
Argument Ordering Decision:
- IF hostile audience → Start with shared values, bury weakest point in middle
- IF neutral audience → Primacy/recency (2nd strongest first, strongest last)
- IF friendly audience → Lead with strongest, maintain momentum
Time Allocation by Format:
- Classical: Exordium 10% | Narratio 20% | Confirmatio 35% | Refutatio 25% | Peroratio 10%
- TED-style: Story 25% | Problem 25% | Solution 35% | Call-to-Action 15%
- Policy: Plan 15% | Inherency 25% | Harms 30% | Solvency 30%
FAILURE MODES
1. Exordium Overload
- Symptoms: Introduction >15% of speech, multiple stories, thesis buried
- Detection: If you can't find the thesis in first 60 seconds of a 5-minute speech
- Fix: Single hook, quick ethos signal, clear thesis statement. Cut everything else.
2. Evidence Dumping
- Symptoms: Lists of facts without warrants, no impact statements, audience glazing over
- Detection: If confirmatio has >5 discrete evidence pieces without logical connectors
- Fix: Group evidence into 2-3 major claims. Use Toulmin: Claim → Warrant → Evidence → Impact
3. Strawman Refutation
- Symptoms: Addressing weak or irrelevant objections while ignoring the strongest counter
- Detection: If refutatio feels easy or opposition sounds unreasonable
- Fix: Steel-man the best objection. If you can't make their case sound compelling, you haven't understood it.
4. Fizzle Finish
- Symptoms: Peroratio restates points without escalation, trails off with qualifications
- Detection: Final sentence contains "maybe," "perhaps," or "in conclusion"
- Fix: End with imperative verb. Return to opening image. No hedging in final 30 seconds.
5. Format Mismatch
- Symptoms: Using TED structure for legal argument, or classical structure for policy pitch
- Detection: Audience looks confused despite clear content
- Fix: Match structure to audience expectations (see decision tree above)
WORKED EXAMPLES
Example 1: Legal Closing (200 words)
[EXORDIUM] "Members of the jury, three weeks ago you promised to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Today, it leads to one conclusion: reasonable doubt."
[NARRATIO] Timeline: incident at 9:47pm → police arrival 10:15pm → witness statements collected 11pm-1am.
[CONFIRMATIO] First, the alibi: restaurant receipt timestamped 9:52pm, five miles away. Physical impossibility to travel that distance in 5 minutes during rush traffic. Second, witness credibility: Ms. Johnson changed her story three times between initial statement and trial testimony—first "maybe saw someone," then "definitely the defendant," now "absolutely certain." This progression suggests influence, not memory.
[REFUTATIO] The prosecution says restaurant receipts can be faked. But they provided no evidence of forgery, no motive for the restaurant to lie, no explanation for how my client could fake a receipt showing him ordering food at the exact moment of the crime.
[PERORATIO] Reasonable doubt isn't just possible here—it's unavoidable. The evidence doesn't whisper doubt; it shouts it. Your oath demands you follow that evidence. Find my client not guilty.
Expert catches: Primacy/recency in confirmatio (strongest argument last), refutatio addresses prosecution's likely response, peroratio echoes opening oath language.
Novice misses: Would dump all evidence equally, wouldn't anticipate strongest objection.
Example 2: Policy Pitch (150 words)
[PROBLEM] Remote work policies are failing 40% of employees who report isolation and productivity drops. Current hybrid solutions address logistics but ignore human connection needs.
[SOLUTION] Implement "squad-based" remote work: permanent 4-person teams with daily virtual coworking sessions, quarterly in-person intensives, and shared project ownership.
[BENEFITS] Pilot data from three departments shows 23% productivity increase, 67% reduction in reported isolation, 45% improvement in project completion rates. Cost: $2400/employee annually vs. $18,000 for full office return.
[ADDRESSING CONCERNS] "This sounds complicated"—actually simpler than current ad-hoc arrangements. Everyone knows their squad, daily touchpoint, quarterly dates. "What about bigger meetings?"—squads send representatives, just like current team leads model.
[CALL TO ACTION] Approve the six-month pilot for marketing and engineering. If results match our pilot data, we'll have solved remote work's biggest weakness while keeping its biggest advantages.
Expert catches: Concrete data points, addresses obvious objection, specific ask.
Novice misses: Would provide vague benefits, wouldn't anticipate implementation concerns.
QUALITY GATES
NOT-FOR BOUNDARIES
Do NOT use this skill for:
- Informational presentations without persuasive intent → Use
presentation-structure instead
- Technical explanations or training materials → Use
instructional-design instead
- Ceremonial speeches (eulogies, toasts, awards) → Use
ceremonial-speech instead
- Impromptu or conversational arguments → Use
socratic-dialogue instead
- Written persuasive essays or articles → Use
argumentative-writing instead
Delegate when:
- User needs argument analysis before structure → Call
toulmin-argument-analysis first
- Content has logical fallacies → Call
logical-fallacy-detector before structuring
- Need to strengthen opposition case for refutatio → Call
steel-man-argument
- Audience analysis required → Call
audience-analysis for complex stakeholder mapping