As part of his competition Speak Up Europe !L’Express combines with French -speaking debate federation (FFD) to enhance public speaking with young Europeans aged 18 to 25. On this occasion, we exchanged with Hugo Rousselle Nerini, president, and Théophile Dardaine, vice-president of the FFD, to decipher the fundamentals of a well-structured discourse, the peculiarities of the praise, the techniques of response to a political discourse … and deliver concrete advice to shine in the big oral of the baccalaureate or on stage.
To register for the L’Express eloquence competition “Speak Up Europe!”, Click here
L’Express: What do you think are the keys to structuring an effective and concise discourse?
Hugo Rousselle Nerini: As we like to recall often: “We are dwarfs on giant shoulders.” To start, we can take up the fairly classic categories that have been set by our predecessors. The structure of discourse consists of an exordium [NDLR : une entrée en matière] -I specify that the word is very masculine, because we often tend to feminize it, which is counter-intuitive-of a development, in which we find narration, argumentation and refutation, and finally a peroration, which comes to conclude.
Inside this structure, the exorde generally contains a hook – there are multiple forms – the idea is to capture the attention of the public, what is called the Captatio Benevolentiae. Then come the arguments, which must be organized. At the start, there is a phase called “invention”: we first look for the arguments. Then comes the “disposition”, which consists in deciding how we organize them, depending on the time we have, their respective strength, etc. I would add that after the arrangement, there is the phase of “speech”. Even if the term can seem vague, this is where we think about the language that we will use: are we going to use style figures? Quotes? Which register to adopt? Humor, when, and how? The challenge remains to find a certain musicality of words.
Finally, the peroration must be as striking as the initial grip. The thesis can be amplified, specify what you ask or offer a moral, a lesson to learn from the subject.
The Speak Up Europe competition! offers two subjects. The first is: “praise a European personality – dead or alive – whose face should adorn euros.”. What is praise specific? What are the techniques specific to praise?
Théophile Dardaine: With its inverse, blame, praise is one of the oldest oratorical exercises, which dates back to Antiquity. In my opinion, it is a much more difficult exercise than it seems because it is not enough to be a meliorative or to have a positive vocabulary, a sympathetic tone. We must also dose these elements, and this is where the difficulty resides. It must be natural. And this is what will make the difference between those who will be selected and those who will not be: their ability to deliver a praise that seems fluid, sincere, obvious.
HRN: There are several types of praise. The best known, when we talk about discourse, is the funeral praise. But it is not necessarily the one we are going to practice here. We will rather orient ourselves towards what is called the panegyric. It is a public discourse that aims to celebrate the great actions, the virtues, the major works of a figure. We will have to make a big place for the narration, but we will also have to argue, because we are not content to say: “Léonardo da Vinci, it’s great”. It will be necessary to explain why this person would deserve to be on a post in euros. This is all the difficulty. Personalities are needed who go beyond borders, who transcend the national framework. Léonardo da Vinci, for example, seems rather emblematic, even if we could blame him for being too centered France-Italia. The candidates will have to place themselves a bit like lawyers of their character, plead their cause, and work an effective peroration to conclude in force.
The second subject of the competition is to respond to the speech of JD Vance pronounced on February 14 at the Security Conference in Munich-How do we effectively respond to a speech?
TD: To be able to answer, you must first listen well several times. Analyze and identify the springs that JD Vance mobilizes: how he begins his speech, what form takes his exordium, his peroration … What are the elements he hammers? Is there a particular lexical field? A specific level of language? Once this listening and this analysis are done, you have to ask yourself on what can we answer? Because you cannot treat everything, you have to choose what really deserves to be underlined, what you will have to remember, what you can concede, what you absolutely have to refute, or what it would be relevant to crop. There are three major options: to concede, crop or refute. And it will be every candidate to make their choices.
To follow the latest info from our meeting meeting on Our dedicated Instagram channel
HRN: A keyword here is this one: refute. Because it is a discourse in response, so we will be very much in refutation. There are several types of reasoning possible. The reasoning by concession, which can be strategic, but also pure refutation. We can also opt for a reasoning by the absurd, or even resort to irony. These are other valid approaches. Then there are also more classic reasoning: inductive, deductive … What thesis do they want to defend? What do they want to invalidate, or on the contrary, confirm? And from there, structure a coherent and effective argument.
Speak Up Europe!
© / L’Express
What basic advice would you give to high school students who prepare the great oral of the baccalaureate?
TD: Many high school students think that only their subject counts, that the substance, the content is all that matters. This is not the case. In the examination grid of the examiners, the shape Speech counts enormously. The ease with which the candidate presents his subject, the way he poses his voice, his posture in the face of the examiners, his gaze-does he look at them or not? Is there a lot of hesitation in his words, etc.
The first advice I give is to train eliminate parasitic words of their speaking. The “uh”, “bah”, “then”, “in fact”, “therefore”, “suddenly” … it is these little words that make all the difference between a prepared high school student and a high school student looking for his words.
There is a very simple method that can be applied at home, alone, with a phone: filming yourself or, failing that, register. Then you have to do Three views of this video:
- The firstjust sound. The pupil will focus on what he says: locate parasitic words, see if the discourse is structured, clear, understandable. There should be no need to see the image to understand the subject.
- The secondonly the image. We are going to look at how we stand, if we move too much, if we have tics, grimaces, if we look everywhere except the examiners. Many look up to the ceiling when they look for their words – it’s good to spot.
- The thirdits + image. This is synthesis, this is where you can really assess its performance in a global way.
HRN: There are now chatgpt copies, but also speaking Chatgpt and it feels. The teachers are more and more attentive to that, and in my opinion, they are the ones who best detect these slightly mechanical, robotic speeches, where the student debits a point that he does not really master. So high school students must train, not only to be comfortable, but especially to appropriate What they are going to say. In addition to filming yourself, I think that training with several, between them, is very useful. Even if we are often afraid of being imperfect, repeating, reworking until you really control your speech is also a very good way to prepare … and to arrive with much more confidence.
As for the structure, his discourse must be like a real speech of eloquence, with a clear construction: an exorde (introduction and hook), a well -organized development, and a peroration (conclusion) which recalls the essential points. Many students forget it and get lost along the way. A solid structure allows you to keep the course, to better convey your message and to be more comfortable on D -Day. It is a classic structure, the same as that found in all major speeches. The speech of Malraux for the entrance of Jean Moulin to the Pantheon, you cut it, and you find an exordium, a development and a peroration. Exactly the same.
You organize the grand final of the French Debate Cup on June 19what can you tell us about this event?
HRN: The 2025 French Cup has gathered 48 teams this year, coming from all of France, but also from Belgium, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Before arriving at the final, more than a hundred debates took place: group matches to the semi-final. The final will oppose this year the FLD oratorium, the club of the Catholic Institute of Lille, and Sorb’Hérauts, one of the Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne teams. Throughout the competition, the teams have an hour of preparation. But for the final, the format evolves: they receive the subject one week in advance, and they discover their position – government or opposition – an hour before the debate. So they will know an hour before if they have to defend or oppose the motion. This guarantees that we will have an interesting debate, because the two teams will have thought about the two angles of the subject.
How does the French-speaking debate federation accompany participants in this preparation?
HRN: Each month, the Federation is organizing training on a Saturday, at the École normale supérieure. These training courses are open to everyone, but there are specific workshops for clubs affiliated with the Federation, and in particular those who are preparing for the Coupe de France or the regional cuts. Then, during the cup, each team is independent in its preparation. The Federation, as an organizer, does not directly support the teams – for the sake of equity.
TD: It is not that we don’t help anyone, it is that we help everyone equally. For example, on the first laps, each team played three games in the same day. Each match lasts about forty-five minutes, plus an hour of preparation. So three times two hours, it’s very intense. It’s a real sport, it’s demanding. But it is also very formative, because the Federation brings together dozens of jurors each edition. They are often former debaters, speaking trainers, sometimes actors, lawyers, HR professionals … or simply people for whom the floor is important in their profession. These jurors have a double mission: to assess according to specific criteria, but also to make systematic returns to the teams. These returns are essential, because they allow teams to progress quickly.
HRN: I would say that 100 % of participants leave with new skills, just thanks to this first round. It is intense, but it is also a day of training in itself, and all the teams, whatever their level, derive a concrete benefit.
Much more than a simple competition, “Speak Up Europe!” is an invitation to rethink Europe, to defend – by force of words – an ambitious and resilient vision of its future. Faced with identity folds, democratic weaknesses and geopolitical rivalries, this competition invites you to question the role and influence of Europe in the world. Economic sovereignty, technological autonomy, cultural influence: what Europe do we want to build?
Registrations are open here
.