PUBLIC FORUM
DEBATE
Debate I
WHAT IS IT?
Public forum debate, also known as
crossfire debate, PFD (sometimes
pronounced puff), pofo, pufo, and
sometimes called by its former names,
controversy debates or Ted Turner
debate, is a style of debate practiced in
National Forensic League
PFD
• Public Forum Debate is audience friendly
debate that focuses on advocacy of a position
derived from the issues presented in the
resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.
• A Public Forum Debate round begins with a
flip of a coin between the competing teams to
determine sides and speaker position.
• Public Forum tests skills in argumentation,
cross-examination, and refutation.
INTRODUCTION
• Public Forum Debate offers students a unique opportunity to
develop on-their-feet critical thinking skills by situating them
in contexts not unlike US political (radio and TV) talk shows.
Public Forum debaters must anticipate numerous
contingencies (possibilities) in planning their cases, and
must learn to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances as
discussions progress.
• Public Forum’s open-ended cross-examination format
encourages the development of unique rhetorical strategies.
Public Forum debates should be transparent to lay audiences
while providing students with real-world public speaking
skills through the discussion of contentious ideas.
Public Forum Debate
• Public Forum will test your skills in
argumentation, cross-examination, and
refutation.
Example
• Current PF Topic: Resolved: The benefits
of post 9/11 security measures outweigh
the harms to personal freedom.
How it goes…
• Two teams make up a Public Forum debate, one taking the
affirmative position, the other arguing the negative. The guidelines
for arguing these positions are as follows:
1. Arguing a Case for the Resolution
The affirmative team has the opportunity to interpret and define
the resolution, and has the responsibility to interpret the resolution
as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The
affirmative team is not required to provide a literal interpretation of
the resolution, but may instead choose to create a metaphorical
interpretation of the resolution. The reasonability of the affirmative
team’s interpretation of the resolution is a matter that can be
argued from debate to debate.
How it goes…
• 2. Arguing Against the Resolution
Assuming that the affirmative team’s interpretation of the
resolution is acceptable, the objective of the negative team’s
efforts is to refute the arguments offered by the affirmative
team and/or to offer its own arguments against the stance
taken by the affirmative team.
The negative team may challenge any aspect of the
affirmative team’s case. For instance, it may challenge the
interpretation of the motion (if it is unreasonable), the factual
and analytical foundations of the proposition’s case, the
underlying assumptions of the proposition team’s claims, or
any costs associated with the affirmative team’s arguments.
Public Forum Debate
• You and a partner will debate
controversial issues that are taken from
newspaper headlines.
• New topics will be announced for each
month.
This Debate Should…
• -display solid logic, reasoning, and
analysis
• -utilize evidence but not be driven by it
• -present a clash of ideas
• -counter the arguments of the opponents
(rebuttal)
• -communicate ideas with clarity,
organization, eloquence, and
• professional decorum
RULES
•
1. In-Round Research is Prohibited
Research on the topic must be completed prior to the beginning of an actual
debate. Once the debate begins, the debaters may not conduct research via
electronic or other means. No outside person can conduct research during the
debate and provide it directly or indirectly to the debaters. The use of a
dictionary to determine the meaning of English words that the debater may
not understand should not be construed as a violation of this rule.
2. Citations
Debaters may refer to or cite any public information. When debaters cite
information, they should be prepared to provide complete documentation of
the source to the opposing team and to the judge on request. A team’s
documentation of cited material must be complete enough that the opposing
team and the judge can independently locate the information. Ordinarily, such
documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and
date of a publication, the URL of a website (if the information was retrieved
electronically), and a page number (if any exists.)
How It Goes
• The debate begins with the first team's first four-minute
constructive speech. In this speech, one of the members
of the team gives arguments either for or against the
resolution (a resolution or topic is a normative
statement which the affirmative team affirms and the
negative team negates.), depending on which side the
team is speaking for.
• Strictly speaking, the custom in public forum debate
dictates that when debaters speak (both for speeches
and crossfire), they should face forward towards the
judge, sometimes from behind a lectern. However in
some tournaments, it is customary for debaters to
remain seated and face each other during crossfire.
CLOSER LOOK @ First Two
Speeches
• In these two speeches, the first and second speakers should deliver
their pre-prepared reasons for adoption or rejection of the topic.
The second speaker may also respond to the most important
arguments raised by the first speaker.
• In the first two speeches, speakers for both sides must be
concerned with constructing and presenting a logical argument
that draws on evidentiary support. This is the one time in the
debate where specific preparation can be used as a tool of the
debate.
How It Goes
• Next, the other side is permitted to give its first fourminute constructive speech in which not only
arguments may be presented, but rebuttals to
arguments from the first speech as well.
• However, rebuttals are almost always not presented
until a team's second constructive, and are frowned
upon in some states/tournaments, and the first
constructive generally consists exclusively of prepared
material.
Cross Fire
• Following this speech, the first speaker from the first team
joins the first speaker from the second team at the podium if
one is provided (in the absence of one debaters stand by their
desks) and the first three-minute "crossfire" begins.
• The first speaker begins crossfire by asking a question to the
second speaker. In crossfire, the two debaters directly ask
each other questions and answer questions of their
opponent.
• Crossfire may be used, like cross-examination, to ask
revealing questions in an attempt to expose a weakness in
the opponents' arguments, but it is often used as a way to
further develop and attack arguments through discourse.
Keep Goin’
• After crossfire, first team's second speaker gives a fourminute rebuttal speech. After they have rebutted their
opponents case, they move on to "rehab" their own
(rebut the opponents rebuttals in an attempt to nullify
them. Although, this only applies to the second speaker
as the first team should not have had any points
rebutted yet.)
• Then, the second speaker of the second team gives a
four-minute constructive speech following this same
format. Following this speech, another three-minute
crossfire ensues.
CLOSER LOOK @
SPEECHES
nd
2
• This speaker position for both sides has the burden of
analyzing the opponents’ position and explaining flaws
in the ideas presented by the other team.
• The judge has an expectation that the two sides will
clash. Clash may be in the form of line-by-line
refutation of the opponent’s position or could focus on
the most "attackable" issues advanced by the other
side.
Grand Crossfire
• The first speaker of the first team then gives a twominute summary speech of the debate, which includes
further rebuttal of the opponents case and reiteration of
the first team's case, and the first speaker of the second
team does the same.
• After this speech, all four debaters participate in "Grand
Crossfire". Grand Crossfire is similar to crossfire except
that all four debaters can ask and answer questions of
each other. The speaker that gave the first summary
speech begins Grand Crossfire by asking the first
question.
Final Focus
• After Grand Crossfire, each team's second speaker has a
chance to give a one-minute speech called the "Final
Focus," the first team giving this speech first.
• In the Final Focus, the speaker is given one last chance
to explain exactly why his or her team has won the
round. No new arguments or evidence is allowed in the
Final Focus. This speech is often the determining factor
for a judge's decision in a closely contested round, as it
allows the judge to hear which arguments/evidence
each team views as the most important to his or her
case, and summarizes the entire debate.
CLOSER LOOK @ FINAL
FOCUS
• In the Final Focus, speakers should select the issue
or issues they feel have become crucial to the round.
• Moreover, they should explain how their side has
won arguments related to those issues. The Final
Focus should not be an attempt to explain all issues
that have been raised, but rather offer sustained,
persuasive commentary on a single issue or small
number of issues of importance.
TOPICS
• April 2009: "Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act serves
the best interests of the American people.“
• March 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the
United States.“
• February 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil,
Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the
United States.“
• January 2009 "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government
should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks
sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.“
• December 2008: "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking
Web sites have had a positive impact on the United States."
TOPICS PT. 2
• November 2008: "Resolved: That the United States government
should implement universal health care modeled after the French
system.“
• October 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should
significantly increase its use of nuclear energy."
• September 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should
implement a military draft."
• NFL Nationals: "Resolved: US policies established after
September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist
acts against the United States.“
• http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_suggestions.php
Time Schedule
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Forum Timing Schedule
First Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes
First Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes
Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Second Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes
Second Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes
Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team A = 2 Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team B = 2 Minutes
Grand Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team A = 1 Minute
Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team B = 1 Minute
Prep Time (per team) = 2 Minutes
Everyone is expected to be a
respectful audience member.
A judge’s rank may
reflect a contestant’s
disrespect to other
competitors during the
round.