The Harry Hurwitz Speech Competition 2027

We are excited to announce another year of the Harry Hurwitz Speech Competition, this time in a new format!

In this competition, students will present a speech in Hebrew, English, or Arabic, designed to resemble an opening speech in a real debate.

Topic: Workers' Rights in the Workplace

Express Interest

About the Competition

This year, the Harry Hurwitz Public Speaking Competition returns in a new format: a Prime Minister's Speech competition. Participants write and deliver a speech in the style of an opening Prime Minister's speech, the kind given by the first speaker on the Government side in a competitive debate. The competition itself is a speech contest, not a debate: each participant is judged individually on a single prepared speech.

Format and Rules

●The competition takes place in two stages: a regional stage, held across four districts (North, Center, Jerusalem, South), and a finals stage. Districts may be merged depending on the number of registrants.
●Participants may compete in one language only: Hebrew, English, or Arabic.
●Each participant chooses one topic from the list below, and writes one Prime Minister speech based on it. That speech will be presented at every stage of the competition. Speeches about topics that don't appear in the list will be disqualified.
●The speech should be written as it would be for an actual debate: presenting a clear position, building logical and well-supported arguments, proactively addressing the opposing side's arguments, and explaining a clear path to victory.
●Speech length: up to 5 minutes for middle school, up to 6 minutes for high school. Anything said after time is up will not be recorded or taken into account in judging.

Registration

To express interest, use the following link:

Express Interest

All registration details will be announced in the near future.

Participation fee: NIS 120 per student.

Cancellation policy: Cancelling less than 21 days before the regional competition will incur a cancellation fee of NIS 50.

Important Dates

	Date	Location
Workshop	To be announced	TBD
North	To be announced	TBD
Center	To be announced	TBD
Jerusalem	To be announced	TBD
South	To be announced	TBD
Finals	To be announced	Begin Heritage Center

How to Write a Winning Speech

Definition and Mechanism

At the start of the speech, it is important to define any unclear terms, explain the meaning of the topic, and clarify exactly what position the speaker is defending.

Order and Structure

Judges should be able to easily follow the different parts of the speech, through clear structure and signposting.

In-Depth Explanation

Every claim in the speech must be explained in depth, not just stated as a headline. An in-depth explanation includes:

●Causal explanations: A step-by-step explanation showing why and how the argument holds true.
●Logical burdens: Demonstrating that every logical step the argument relies on has actually been proven, not just asserted.
●Examples and illustration: Grounding the argument in concrete examples that illustrate it.
●Impacting: Explaining why the argument matters, and the scope of its effects.

Relevance

Arguments should be specifically tailored to the topic and the debate it addresses, rather than staying generic:

●Specificity to the topic: Arguments must stem directly from the specific wording of the topic, not just the broad subject area.
●Engaging with the key clashes: The speech should show awareness of the central points of contention in the debate and engage with them.
●A clear path to victory: The speaker should present a clear explanation of why the chosen side wins the debate, including why the arguments presented are the most decisive on the topic at hand.

The full scoring system ("Speaks") is detailed later on this page.

What's Changing This Year?

In previous years, the competition was a public speaking competition: each participant wrote a speech on a topic from a list, and was judged mainly on research, structure, and delivery.

This year, the format is changing to a PM speech competition, modeled on the opening speech given by the first speaker on the Government side in debate. The emphasis shifts from delivery and research to logic and argument-building, putting participants' analytical and argumentative skills at the center. The scoring system is also being updated accordingly, based on the "Speaks" scale used by the Israeli Debate League.

Topic: Workers' Rights in the Workplace

The list of topics is divided into 3 categories. Each topic is phrased on both sides; participants choose one side to write their speech on.

Group A: Pay and Employment Conditions

1.
A. This House supports employees having the right to know how much their coworkers earn.
B. This House opposes employees having the right to know how much their coworkers earn.
2.
A. This House supports unpaid internships.
B. This House opposes unpaid internships.
3.
A. This House supports raising the minimum wage.
B. This House opposes raising the minimum wage.
4.
A. This House would let employees, rather than managers/bosses, decide which employees should receive a salary bonus.
B. This House would let managers/bosses, rather than employees, decide which employees should receive a salary bonus.

Group B: Job Security and Employee Rights

1.
A. This House supports the right of workers to strike even in essential services (such as hospitals and public transportation).
B. This House opposes the right of workers to strike in essential services (such as hospitals and public transportation).
2.
A. This House supports replacing human workers with artificial intelligence and robots.
B. This House opposes replacing human workers with artificial intelligence and robots.
3.
A. This House supports granting "employee" status and rights (rather than "independent contractor" status) to delivery app drivers (such as Wolt and Gett).
B. This House opposes granting "employee" status and rights (rather than "independent contractor" status) to delivery app drivers (such as Wolt and Gett).
4.
A. This House supports requiring employers to prove just cause before firing an employee.
B. This House opposes requiring employers to prove just cause before firing an employee.

Group C: Work-Life Balance and Fairness in the Labor Market

1.
A. This House supports equal parental leave for fathers and mothers.
B. This House opposes equal parental leave for fathers and mothers.
2.
A. This House supports moving to a 4 day work week.
B. This House opposes moving to a 4 day work week.
3.
A. This House supports setting representation quotas for women in tech and engineering roles.
B. This House opposes setting representation quotas for women in tech and engineering roles.
4.
A. This House supports remote work/working from home becoming the norm.
B. This House opposes remote work/working from home becoming the norm.

Speaks Table (Speaker Scoring)

The competition will be judged according to a new scoring system, based on the "Speaks" scale used by the Israeli Debate League, adapted to assess argument construction, logic, and the structure of a Prime Minister's speech.

Speaker Scale - Israeli Debate League▼

Level	Significance	Execution
Minimal	●The arguments in the speech are irrelevant to the topic or entirely generic ●No engagement with the other team's material or with the central clashes in the debate ●No explanation of how the material contributes to the team's victory	●Assertions and headlines only, no explanation of mechanisms or causation provided ●No attempt is made to address logical burdens or to establish logical steps ●Entirely abstract, with no concrete examples ●No clear impact / no link to the motion
Weak	●The arguments relate to the topic but remain generic and broad, with no link to the actors or the specific context of the motion ●The speech addresses peripheral points or secondary clashes, missing the central arguments and clashes ●An explanation is given for why the material matters in the debate, but it is vague and unconvincing	●Superficial claims with minimal explanation ●The speech mentions a few logical steps, but they are presented as self-evident and left unproven ●The points are vague, with examples used only sparingly ●An impact is mentioned but remains vague and lacks scope
Basic	●The arguments are connected to the motion, but the analysis linking them to it remains superficial and requires further depth ●Some of the relevant material and clashes are addressed, but mostly at a superficial level or while missing significant clashes ●The team's path to victory is presented intuitively but superficially, lacking clarity and explanation	●Some parts are backed by explanations and mechanisms, but significant parts are undeveloped or assertive ●A core logical structure exists, but certain key links and burdens are presented as self-evident or left unsubstantiated ●Examples and characterization are used at times, but important parts remain vague and lack concretization ●The impact is defined but remains vague, with unclear scope
Solid	●Motion-specific analysis is presented, but parts of the speech remain general, with only partial detail on the most relevant phenomena, populations or principles ●Important arguments from the other team are meaningfully attacked, but certain key points do not receive enough attention ●A clear outline of the team's path to victory is presented with reasonable weighing or framing, but the explanation requires further detail and depth	●Explanations and mechanisms appear throughout the speech, though at times they remain at a basic level of depth ●Most of the logical steps are addressed, but one or two logical steps are not sufficiently substantiated ●Consistent use of examples throughout the speech, though some are generic and do not fully clarify the mechanisms ●A relatively clear impact, with room to develop its details and scope further
Strong	●The analysis is topic-specific and focuses on the important sides of the motion, though at times it lacks precision and detail ●The opponents' strongest material is adequately addressed and the speech focuses on the most important clashes in the debate, though a few key points could go deeper ●The path to victory is well explained and supported by effective weighing or framing, though one or two points in it require further development and depth	●Detailed explanations and mechanisms in all parts of the speech, though some have room for further depth ●Proper engagement with the critical logical burdens, but some secondary steps are neglected ●Relevant examples throughout the speech that effectively ground most claims, though some parts could be sharper ●A well-defined impact with clear scope and significance, though somewhat generic
Excellent	●The analysis focuses on the central specific factors in the motion, clearly addressing the phenomena, populations or principles at the heart of the debate ●Comprehensive engagement with the clashes, addressing their strongest material with strong responses and weighing ●A convincing path to victory is presented that comprehensively explains why the team wins, with strong weighing or framing that engages the other team's best material	●Deep and sophisticated explanations with detailed mechanisms across most of the speech ●Every key burden is carefully proven and every logical step receives sufficient treatment ●Consistent use of detailed, high-quality and relevant examples that clarify mechanisms and ground claims ●A significant impact with clear, concrete and powerful scope
Elite	●The phenomena, actors and principles that decide the debate are identified with complete clarity, and the speech engages with them deeply and with nuance throughout ●The material on every clash is decisive, refuting the opponents' arguments while reframing the debate in the team's favor ●A detailed and sophisticated path to victory is presented that addresses every side of the debate and preempts the best material and framing the other team could have run	●Deep detail with creative and sophisticated explanations and mechanisms across every part of the speech ●A clear, well-proven logical chain that meets every burden, addressing edge cases and potential weaknesses preemptively ●Every key claim is supported by grounded, relevant and sharp examples that cut directly to the heart of each point ●A clear impact with enormous scope relative to the scale of the debate, with tangible and powerful concretization

Points Table▼

Significance / Execution	Minimal	Weak	Basic	Solid	Strong	Excellent	Elite
Minimal	80–84	83–87	86–90	89–93	92–96	95–99	98–102
Weak	83–87	86–90	89–93	92–96	95–99	98–102	101–105
Basic	86–90	89–93	92–96	95–99	98–102	101–105	104–108
Solid	89–93	92–96	95–99	98–102	101–105	104–108	107–111
Strong	92–96	95–99	98–102	101–105	104–108	107–111	110–114
Excellent	95–99	98–102	101–105	104–108	107–111	110–114	113–117
Elite	98–102	101–105	104–108	107–111	110–114	113–117	116–120

Additional Resources

Siach VaSig's YouTube channel

Is your school interested in participating?

Schools interested in bringing a group of students to the competition are invited to fill out a short interest form, and we will get back to you with all the details.

Express Interest