Background to Public Forum
One of the newest forms of academic debate, Public Forum Debate was designed to
enable debaters to discuss current events in an accessible, conversational format.
Public Forum rounds feature polished delivery, exciting clash, and fast-paced
refutations. The format also allows debaters to work together as partners. For these
reasons, Public Forum Debate often comes closest to what many beginning debaters
imagine debate will look like.
Public Forum Debate features four high school students on teams of two debating a
timely issue in highly structured speech times. The teams compete for the vote of a
judge or panel of judges, who will decide the round based on which team debated
better. Debate in Public Forum should be conducive to adjudication by citizen judges
and should not require special knowledge or training to judge. The debaters will use
their common knowledge, reasoning, and evidence from third-party experts to
support and substantiate their arguments.
The Resolution
The central component of Public Forum Debate is the resolution, which is the topic
that the students debate. Resolutions are generated by the National Speech and
Debate Association and are chosen each month by a vote of NSDA member schools;
Resolutions are intended to be “ripped from the headlines” and to reflect prevailing
issues about which most well-read individuals would be informed. Previous
resolutions have covered a wide array of topics such as 9/11 security measures,
cyber-bullying, and civil disobedience. Two recent resolutions have been:
Resolved: The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits.
Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial
incentives to encourage organ donation.
The word “Resolved” appears at the beginning of each resolution, which sets up the
basic clash of every Public Forum round: the pro team, also called the affirmative or
"aff" team. The “aff” team attempts to prove the resolution true, while the con team,
also called the negative or “neg” team, attempts to prove it false.
Public Forum Debate does not have pre-established burdens of proof for either side
of the debate. In other words, neither the pro or con team is obligated to debate in a
certain way to uphold certain arguments; instead, the resolution itself will generate
those burdens of proof
Sides
In most other forms of debate, the debaters are assigned sides before the round
begins. In Public Forum Debate, this is determined with a coin toss. The team that
wins the toss may choose which side of the resolution they would like to defend
OR whether they would like to speak first or second. Depending on which choice
the winning team makes, the team that has lost the coin toss makes the remaining
choice. For example, if the winning team selects which side it wants to defend, then
the losing team chooses to speak either first or second.
Because debaters cannot always control the side of the resolution they must defend,
they must be prepared to debate both sides of every resolution.
All things being equal, it is always most advantageous to speak second b/c it
allows you to rebut attacks to your case before summation speeches.
Speeches
The debate itself is broken down into a series of speeches based on the speaking
order selected during the coin toss. This makes Public Forum Debate unique
among debate events in that the con, or negative, team may begin the debate.
Both teams and speakers alternate speeches until the conclusion of the debate.
Public Forum Debate includes four types of speeches: the constructive, the
rebuttal, the summary, and the final focus. It also includes three questioning
periods, called crossfire. Note that each debater speaks twice, delivering both a
four-minute speech and a two-minute speech. The order of speakers and teams
is consistent throughout the round; if Team A gives the first constructive speech,
then Team A will give the first rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches. Also,
the debater who delivers the constructive speech will deliver the summary; the
student who delivers the rebuttal will deliver the final focus.
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES (4 minutes)
The constructive speeches are the teams’ first opportunity to deliver and establish
their prepared arguments, also called a “case.” These speeches are typically fully
scripted. The first speaker from each team will read their case, which will include
evidence in support of or in opposition to the resolution depending on the side of
the team in any given debate. Once the first speaker has finished, the first speaker
from the second team will stand and deliver their case. Typically, no direct clash
between ideas occurs at this point in the debate.
Elements of First Constructive Speeches (725-750 words)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
introduction – quote, anecdote
state resolution and your position
Define any confusing or ambiguous words
Establish Framework
(2 or3) Contentions
– introduced by short ‘tag-lines’
-- reasons why resolution is true or false
Elements of Contentions:
a. claim (aka: “this is what we say”)
b. warrant / research (aka: “this is why we say it”)
c. impact (aka: “this is why what we say is important”)
CROSSFIRE (3 minutes)
Following the two constructive speeches, the first speakers from each team engage
in a crossfire, a three-minute period during which either speaker may ask or
answer questions. The speaker from the team that speaks first has the right to ask
the first question. Following the first question, the flow of questions is left up to the
debaters. After answering a question, a speaker will usually interrupt her
opponent’s questions to indicate that she would now like to ask a question. Both
debaters participating in the crossfire stand and address each other as well as the
judge during the crossfire periods.
REBUTTAL SPEECHES (4 minutes)
After the first crossfire, the second speakers on each team deliver the rebuttal
speeches; this is the first opportunity for each team to refute, or answer, the
arguments made by their opponents. In this four-minute speech, the speakers are
charged with disproving their opponent’s cases with their own analysis or with
evidence from third-party sources. The first speaking team’s rebuttal will focus on
refuting their opponent’s case; the second speaking team’s rebuttal must both
refute their opponent’s case and also respond to attacks made against their own
case. Speakers stand and address the judge during the rebuttal speeches and speak
extemporaneously from notes. After the rebuttal speeches, the second speakers
from each team participate in the second crossfire period, which follows the form
and style of the first.
When responding to attacks on your case, it is always better to choses
OFFENSIVE arguments rather than defensive or mitigating arguments.
Two primary offensive rebuttal arguments include:
1. link turn – this arguments demonstrates that the exact opposite of the claim
will, in fact, happen.
2. Impact turn – claims that the horrible impacts claimed by the other team
are, in fact, good things.
EXAMPLE: Aff proposes that increasing the minimum wage will lead to
a stronger economy.
NEG ARGUES :
link turn - NO! increasing the minimum wage will actually
lead to a weaker economy
impact turn: OK, but a stronger economy is actually bad
b/c it leads to morally bankrupt consumerism.
EXAMPLE: Aff proposes a state tax on very wealthy individual to
raise revenue for social programs.
NEG ARGUES:
Link turn: NO! taxes on very wealthy individual result in LESS
government revenue b/c the wealthy simply will move to other
‘
states with lower tax rates, resulting in a NET LOSS of revenue.
Impact turn: Social programs are bad b/c they result in
dependency and laziness.
SUMMARY SPEECHES (2 minutes)
Following the second crossfire, the first speakers on each team deliver their
summary speeches. These speakers will attempt to summarize the main issues in
the debate and continue to persuasively advocate for their position. The speakers
stand and address the judge during their summary speeches.
This is a tricky speech and may well require the greatest prep time. You will need to
decide what issues you think you can win and pull and impact them. You will need
to show why your advantages outweigh those of the other team.
GRAND CROSSFIRE (3 minutes)
Following the summary speeches, debaters participate in the grand crossfire. The
grand crossfire is very similar to the other crossfires, except that all four debaters
participate. The debaters address one another and the judge but generally remain
seated. The grand crossfire is notorious for escalating tension, so all participants
need to be mindful of decorum.
FINAL FOCUS (2 minutes)
The last speech of the debate is the final focus, which is delivered by the second
speaker. No new arguments may be made in the final focus; instead, the speaker
concentrates on analyzing the arguments that have been made already and detailing
for the judge why, on the merit of those arguments, her team should win the debate.
This final focus is about weighing the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
both teams.
Common weighing mechanisms:
Long-term vs. short term:
EXAMPLE: Federal bailout of banks in 2009. Was it better to prevent
financial collapse in the short term with the bailout or will the long-term
consequences of the exploded federal debt and inflation be worse?
EXAMPLE: Should we fund a manned colony on Mars? The question
here would be whether it’s worth the short terms loss of money for the longterm benefits of scientific knowledge.
Micro vs. Macro
EXAMPLE: In the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gay
marriage, the Supreme Court created a new constitutional right, “dignity”.
While most agree that gay marriage should be legal, the consensus of
constitutional scholars believe that the Supreme Court damaged the
authority of the constitution by altering it to make it ‘fit’ contemporary
concerns. The issue, then, is whether the ‘micro’ issue of gay marriage
outweighs the ‘macro’ issue of constitutional integrity.
This issue would overlap with short-term, long-term analysis as well (short
term, solving gay rights issues; long term, the unforeseeable damage caused
by a weak constitution).
Quality vs. Quantity
EXAMPLE: Many soy and corn lobbyists argue that soybean oil and
high fructose corn syrup has lowered the cost of American food. And this is
indeed true. But at the same time, obesity is at epidemic levels and links to
the use of high fructose corn syrup and soy stabilizers have been identified as
culprits. The issue then becomes: is it better to have more food at a lower
quality, or is it better to have less food of a higher quality?
This argument would also apply to the issue of organic farming as well as the
use of pesticides, antibiotics, and genetically modified seeds.
Risk: The mathematical formula for risk is:
Risk = Probability x Impact.
To win a risk argument you will need to show that you have greater overall
risk.
EXAMPLE:
Negative argues that if Iran gets nuclear bombs, there is a risk that it will
lead to a full-on nuclear war between Iran and Israel leading to the
extinction of humanity.
Aff says, “What a minute! A lot of things have to happen for the human
race to be extinct. The probability is so small, risk is negligible.”
Neg says, “Who cares if probability is small? It’s there! And the impact is
extinction! Our risk is greater and we win the round!”
Preparation Time
In addition to the eight speeches and three crossfire periods, each team has two
minutes of preparation time, usually just called “prep.” Debaters may choose to use
prep time at any point of the debate, but only between speeches or crossfires;
debaters may not take prep time in the middle of a speech. During prep time,
partners may consult with each other over potential arguments to make or
questions to raise during upcoming speeches or crossfires. The two minutes of prep
time is cumulative for the debate, so participants must manage this time wisely.
Determining the Winner
At the conclusion of the debate, the judge will decide who has won the round based
on the merits of the debate. She will fill out a ballot that is distributed by the
tournament, indicating a winner and assigning points for each debater. Judges are
asked to decide the round based on the merits of the debate rather than their
personal biases about the topic. Judges typically decide the winner based on the
arguments presented and decide speaker points based upon the style and speaking
skill of the speakers. Each tournament has its own rules concerning speaker points,
but typically they are given on a scale of 1 to 30.
Summary of Speeches / Times
Prep time: 2 minutes (may be taken at any time and in increments)