A Guide to Public Forum Debate Page 1

Public Forum Debate (PFD) is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the monthly resolution topic
(announced online at www.nflonline.org). The clash of ideas must be communicated in a manner persuasive to the
non-specialist or “citizen judge”, i.e. a member of the American jury. The debate should:

Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis

Utilize evidence without being driven by it

Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team (rebuttal)

Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

The Topic ~ Topics are worded as resolutions, may begin with the con side, arguing against the topic.
meaning they advocate solving a problem by establishing a Teams might consider: Is one side of the topic more
position. Teams must understand the meaning of the acceptable to citizen judges? On which side is the team
terminology in a consistent manner so debates have a clash stronger? On which side of the topic are the opponents
of ideas. If the topic were “Resolved: Free trade benefits stronger? Is the first speaker position critical to “sell” the
all nations,” it would be vital to understand the concept of case by making a good first impression? Is the final focus
free trade. An expert definition from an economics speech critical for the last word to the judge(s)? Are the
dictionary or encyclopedia would be preferable to a opponents so effective in either the first or last speaker
standard dictionary. If the topic were, “Resolved: NATO position that our team needs to select speaker position
countries should act together on international matters,” rather than side? The first team sits to the judge’s left.
the more common terms ‘act’ and ‘together’ could be
appropriately defined by a standard dictionary. Given the Speeches and Time Limits
limited time of a round, debate should not center on Speaker 1 (Team A, 1st speaker ) .........................4 min.
obscure claims of minutia. Speaker 2 (Team B, 1st speaker) ...........................4 min.
Crossfire (between speakers 1 & 2) .................3 min.
Case Development & Evidence
Speaker 3 (Team A, 2nd speaker )........................4 min.
A team must develop both a pro and con case,
Speaker 4 (Team B, 2nd speaker ) ........................4 min.
persuasively supported by evidence and
reasoning. Given the short nature of a Public Crossfire (between speakers 3 & 4) .................3 min.
Forum round, the cases should center on a few Speaker 1 Summary...................................................2 min.
quality arguments. A team, however, should research Speaker 2 Summary...................................................2 min.
several arguments on both sides of the issue, so it can adapt
Grand Crossfire (all speakers).........................3 min.
its case to the opposing team’s claims as necessary. Having
arguments in direct contradiction with each other will Speaker 3 Final Focus................................................1 min.
enhance the clash in the rebuttals. Organization of the Speaker 4 Final Focus................................................1 min.
speeches through effective communication and clear Each team may use up to two minutes of prep time.
outlines is important so both judges and the opposing team
can follow each of the arguments and their supporting First Pro Speech ~ This speech constructs
evidence. Effective persuasion requires credible, unbiased, arguments advocating the resolution’s worthiness. The key
quality supporting evidence. Believable, rationale evidence analysis will be to present major reasons why there is a
may include a mix of facts, statistics, expert quotations, problem. An underlying concept will always be the risk of
studies, polls; but it may also be real-life examples, change versus the risk of not changing. This speech should
anecdotes, analogies, and personal experience. Since have a brief introduction to frame the team’s case for the
topics are based on current events, research should be judge. If a definition is important to understanding the case,
accessible through periodicals, Web search engines and it should be presented from the most appropriate source.
think tanks. Teams should not overwhelm their case with A few reasons for adopting the topic should be presented
evidence; rather, they should select the best evidence to with accompanying evidence. Each reason should be an
represent their claims. independent reason to vote for the resolution, and should
explain why it is pertinent. The speech should conclude
The Coin Flip ~ The round starts with a with a summary of the arguments covered.
coin toss; the winning team selects either:

The side (pro or con) they will argue First Con Speech ~ This speech constructs

The speaker order (begin the arguments showing disadvantages of the resolution and
debate or give the last speech). why it should not be adopted. If the pro speech has the
The team that loses the toss will then decide their advantage of a changing future, the con speech has a
preference from the option not selected by the winner (i.e., track record of experience (status quo) and why change is
if the winning team decides to speak last, then the losing team ill-advised The rest of the speech elements will be the
may decide which side they will argue). The debate, therefore same as the pro speech.
A Guide to Public Forum Debate Page 2

The Second Team ~ If the team feels that the judging this round, what would I be voting on?” Strategies
opponent’s case is based on a faulty or unfair include: Choose the most important argument you are
interpretation of the resolution, they should provide winning, and summarize the analysis and evidence that
counter definitions and convincingly explain why their make it so important. Turn a major argument from your
perspective is more appropriate. Whichever side speaks opponent into the winning analysis and evidence of one of
second may also choose to drop a reason from the your important arguments; this technique clinches two
prepared speech and spend time instead refuting claims arguments. Answer the most important argument you may
presented by the other team. This strategy should be be losing by summarizing the analysis and evidence that
employed when one of the arguments directly clashes with you believe takes out the opponent’s argument. Choose an
the other teams or when the team believes one of the argument that you believe the community judge will most
opponent’s arguments is based on a false definition or likely vote on. Expose a major inconsistency made by your
assumption. opponent—two arguments that contradict each other—at
least one of which the opponent is focusing on to win the
Third & Fourth Constructive Speeches debate. Remember, however, the final focus is only one
Both of these debaters have the primary burden to refute minute long and trying to win multiple arguments will be
the other team’s arguments by analyzing and explaining fruitless. A single argument that is
flaws in the opponent’s position. The debater should presented clearly and persuasively will
identify key arguments of the opponent and attack their be the best strategy.
legitimacy by: turning the analysis to the other side;
presenting evidence that destroys or reduces the opposing Art of Argumentation ~
position; presenting alternate causes that are not The quantity of arguments is less
accounted for by the opposition argument; exposing important than the quality of arguments, just as the
argument inconsistencies between the speakers or quantity of evidence is less important than the quality of
between the opponents and their statements during evidence. Thus we come to three important components
crossfire. To best accomplish refutation, both members of of an argument: claim, evidence, and warrant. A
a team should have a consistent approach and a unified claim is a major argument made on either side of the
view of what is important and less important. An argument resolution. On the resolution, “Resolved that NATO
format could be an introduction that links the team’s countries should have acted together in Iraq,” a claim
second speech to the first speech, followed by an overview could be that animosities would be reduced because one
of the issue, which is frequently the opponent’s argument, nation would not bear the brunt of the responsibility for
followed by reasons/evidence why the opponent is wrong, the invasion. To prove this to be true, a debate must
followed by what this argument clash now means for your provide evidence, proving that the claim is valid. The
side in the debate. In addition, some time in either of these debater chooses at least one type of evidence that will
speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original support the claim even when challenged. In the above
case. It is important to have clarity that is seldom attained example, much credible evidence exists that resistance is
by an intricate outline. Speeches should conclude with a high because the United States for the most part acted
summary. alone. Perhaps the most crucial component of
argumentation is the warrant. Warrants connect the
Summary Speeches ~ These are complicated claim and its support, sometime obviously, sometime
speeches because each debater has to find a way to explain subtly. Warrants emerge from the total sum of our
issues in the light of all that has happened so far – in just experiences and personal observations. Thus it is entirely
two minutes – without speaking too rapidly. New possible that the debater and the judge have a different set
evidence, but not new arguments may be presented. This of experiences. The warrant for the claim used in the
means that a limited number of issues can be addressed. NATO example should connect the judge to the thesis,
For example, perhaps develop one to two issues from the perhaps by making anecdotal comments about how
debater’s side on the resolution and one from the everyone is much better satisfied when cooperation exists,
opponent’s side of the resolution. The speech should have whether among people or nations. On the other hand,
a brief overview. On each key argument, the opposing team can counter that forcing nations to
try to add a short original quotation, cooperate with each other when that is not their wish
anecdote, or fact. Wrap up each alienates allies and ruins alliances. Turn the evidence
argument by stressing its importance in against the team and make the logical warrant that such a
arriving at a fair decision. NATO policy for Iraq would have destroyed NATO,
would have kept us operating in Iraq by ourselves, and
The Final Focus ~ This frames, with clarity, why would have destroyed the unity for future NATO
your team has won the debate. Again, no new arguments missions. Warrants provide believable reasons why a
may be presented. Before the final focus, ask, “If I were claim and evidence are true. That is why evidence without
A Guide to Public Forum Debate Page 3

analysis can result in an assertion without substance and an and hence become truly skilled in the communication of
argument lost. Arguments and evidence without warrants arguments, evidence and analysis.
are seldom persuasive.
Evaluation & Judging ~ The judge is the
Crossfire ~ Questioning periods chairperson of the round (facilitating the coin flip and giving
give debate interactivity and a change time signals if requested), and may halt any crossfire lacking
to build clash. In crossfire, both civility. S/he may not interact in the crossfire.
debaters have equal access to the
floor, but the first question must Judges evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments
be asked to the debater who just actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
finished speaking by a debater on issues they think a particular side should have covered.
from the other team. After the initial question and Judges should assess the bearing of each argument on the
answer, either debater may question or answer. A truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. The pro
debater who attempts to dominate or be rude to his should prove that the resolution is true, and the con
opponent will lose points. Good questions are brief and should prove that the resolution in not true. When
good answers must meet the question. In the first two deciding the round, judges should ask, “If I had no prior
crossfires, only the corresponding speakers may beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole
participate, and they stand next to each other. have made me more likely to believe the resolution was
true or not true?” Teams should strive to provide a
straightforward perspective on the resolution; judges
Grand Crossfire ~ Seated, all debaters interact should discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only
with one another. The first question is asked to the team serve to confuse the opposing team. Plans (formalized,
that just ended its summary by the other team. After the comprehensive proposals for implementation),
initial question and answer, any debater may question or counterplans and kritiks (off-topic arguments) are not
answer, and all should participate. The same guidelines for allowed. Generalized, practical solutions should support a
rudeness and stalling apply to the grand crossfire. Resist position of advocacy.
rushing questions or answers, or trying to do too much in
crossfire; desperation is not persuasive. Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere
quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to
Prep Time ~ Each team has two support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence
may strengthen – but not replace – arguments.
minutes of prep time. For very practical
reasons, a team should not use prep time Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges
until their summary speech or final focus weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly
speech. Being prepared on the arguments explained, and they will discount arguments that are too
is the best way to avoid using prep time until it is vital to fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by
select the key arguments and issues. an intelligent high school student or a well-informed
citizen. A team should not be penalized for failing to
Delivery ~ Effective delivery is critical to impact the understand his or her opponent’s unclear arguments.
arguments for a citizen judge. Practice delivery in front of
ordinary people: teachers, parents, relatives, friends, non- In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must
debate classmates. Heed their advice. If they tell you to appeal to the widest possible audience through sound
slow down, slow down; if they tell you to quit repeating reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and
yourself, start your sentences with the subject and avoid clear delivery. Team points provide a mechanism for
compound complex sentences; if they tell you to enunciate evaluating the relative “quality of debating” by each side.
more clearly, practice with a pencil in your mouth; if they
tell you to look up, make sure you remember everything
about the person to whom you are talking; if they tell you
to speak with variety, practice emphasizing key words,
especially action verbs; if they tell you to speak louder,
practice with cotton in your ears. In other words, do
everything before a debate to cultivate a good delivery.

Working Knowledge ~ The more a debater