Marvin Ridge High School

Speech and Debate Team

Novice Public Forum Manual

Rahi Patel

Essential Debate Terms:

Resolution - another name for a topic, stated as a definitive policy. Ex The US should ban squirrelfeeding in public parks.
Pro or Affirmative - argues for the resolution
Con or Negative - argues against the resolution
Contention - a main point or argument, makes a claim about the resolution that essentially explains one
reason why your point is correct. A good case has three.
Subpoint - one angle or element of a contention
Warrant - the reason why something is true. Ex. if I say squirrels are mean, the warrant would be their
brains were wired by Satan.
Impact - the result of a statement. Ex. if squirrels are mean, they will attack us for feeding them.
Card - a piece of evidence. We Cut cards or take passages out of sources to create a database (or brief)
of many points. We then select a few from the brief as our case which we will read as a speech.
Block - a counter argument from some card
Flow - an organized look at the debate that matches points with the speeches in which they were said
Correlation v. Causation - the idea that just because two things are linked, doesnt mean one causes the
other. very common argumentative strategy.
Crossfire - a period of questioning. Speakers may stand or sit depending on judge preference. There are
two one-on-one crossfires and one Grand Crossfire where all may speak.
Constructive - a speech where the speaker primarily reads cards and builds his/her arguments. the first
speeches of the round
Summary - the third speech of the round, used to address every point made in the round. Is an intensive
and complete discussion
Final Focus - the last speech. chooses 2-3 voting issues to focus on as reasons that your side won the
round.
Ballot - what a judge writes his decision on

Rebuttal - used to counter the constructive, specifically. the second speeches of the round
Dropped Argument = any arguments which are not addressed by the other side are dropped, and
therefore are assumed to be true throughout the round. New arguments CANNOT be made in final focus.
Coin Flip - occurs at the beginning of the round. Winner either chooses the side to debate (pro/con) or
whether to speak first or second in the round (e.g. can happen in any order)
Second Speaker Advantage - pretty much a myth for some, but can be extremely valuable for evenly
matched teams. As second speaker, you hear the case before they hear yours. you can use prep time to
your advantage.
Prep Time - You have 4 minutes throughout the round to chat with your partner. Go ham.

Remember: A contention is a streamlined statement which should be used

only to state main points.

General Format
For LD and PF, a general format for a constructive speech:
I.
Define terms in the resolution [30 seconds 1 minute]
II.
Introduce your stance and give a basic framework of the debate [30 seconds]
III.
Give your three contentions, and state 1-2 pieces of evidence [2 minutes 30 seconds]
IV.
Conclude with something like, For these reasons and many more, we urge you to vote
for the pro [or affirmative] side of this debate.

Public Forum
A coin flip at the beginning will determine which team will speak first and which team will argue
which side. The first speaker of your team will be either speaker 1 (if your team is speaking first)
or speaker 2 (if your team is speaking 2 nd), and the second speaker of the team will be either
speaker 3 or 4, respectively.
Speeches and Time Limits
Speaker 1 (Team A, 1st speaker )
4 min.
Speaker 2 (Team B, 1st speaker)
4 min.
Crossfire (between speakers 1 & 2)
3 min.
Speaker 3 (Team A, 2nd speaker)
4 min.
Speaker 4 (Team B, 2nd speaker)
4 min.
Crossfire (between speakers 3 & 4)
3 min.
Speaker 1 Summary
2 min.
Speaker 2 Summary
2 min.
Grand Crossfire (all speakers)
3 min.
Speaker 3 Final Focus
2 min.
Speaker 4 Final Focus
2 min.
Each team may use up to two minutes of prep time.

Objectives of Cross-examination
Remember: always keep the focus on your own case!
Clarification:
Would you explain the use?
State briefly the ultimate goal of
Did you mean that?
Restate the
Expose Errors:
Source arguments: do not use these unless you have a better source
or you have nothing else to say, or else it may consume valuable time!
Question the method of studies, the existence of counterstudies,
and the sample size
Note words such as may, few, some, indicates, seems
Fallacy-based debate
Admissions
Get your opponent to admit something!
Try using roundabout tacticsif someone is missing some piece of
evidence or logical conclusion, try
Will you please read the card where you stated (blah) [the answer
should be, I didnt read that]
In LD Debate, try using hypothetical situations
Set Up Arguments
If you have another contention to read, or some backup points, ask
questions relating to that
Say I have a backup contention on mental illnesses. Ask: How
does policy XYZ affect mentally ill people? Have you even considered that?
If they answer, write it down! Now you have another rebut to build
your case on. DO NOT STUTTER
The ___________ speaker himself admitted under cross-ex that
Try prefacing your points by using theirs. Say were arguing about
the policies of the war on terror. They say we should keep fighting as a policy of
containment, citing the Cold War. You can ask: does this include using
_________ tactics? They respond, sure. Then you pounce.
1. Always end on a high note. In LD, if you have an advantage and there are a few seconds
left, stop!
2. Lead up to some major point.
3. NEVER LET YOUR OPPONENT TAKE CONTROL OF THE SESSION
4. Try to go for yes-or-no questions to prevent filibusters
5. Try to get a concrete answer to every question
6. Do not ask questions to which you do not know the answer.
4

7. Let your personality show!

The Research Process

Find a set of simple search terms and find a general news article and understand the current
mindsets for and against the arguments. Move on to think tanks and read more detailed
publications, copying useful evidence cards into a separate document with the proper citations.
Once you find info that excites you or sounds good, start going through their citations. If the
evidence is a statistic, find the area of the statistic (e.g. Section IV disenfranchisement or voter
ID numbers from Texas) getting as specific as possible, and then broadening from there. Keep
going until you have a few hundred sources, then start writing as well. Let it flow in the
beginning and write the case as if its a narrative before you throw in the actual cards so you
understand the logic behind the numbers. Keep researching in the meantime. You can never have
too much evidence!
YOU CAN AND SHOULD HAVE A COMPUTER IN THE ROUND SO YOU CAN LOOK AT
ALL OF YOUR CARDS TO USE AS BLOCKS. YOU MAY FLOW ON A COMPUTER. THE
ONLY CATCH : NO INTERNET ACCESS. EVER.

Flowing
When in a debate round, its unlikely that you will remember everything you hear. The solution is
to write it down so you can remember it later in or after the round. However, simply writing
down notes can still be confusing if you dont keep track of who is speaking, argument order, or
the context of those arguments.
Flowing is refers to how a debater keeps a keep an organized, written record of what happens in
a round. A flow is the actual paper that the arguments are recorded on. The basic idea behind this
specific method is to place corresponding responses next to the original arguments. This allows
you to more easily know what was originally said, identify if a rebuttal was made to an
argument, and compare the rebuttal to the argument, rather than having to sift through papers and
piece random points together at the end of the round. Basically, it helps you keep your ish
together through round.
Our team has used two methods of flowing: the classic method used by all debaters and a more
concise form used by our own. Neither form is inferior. It all depends on the notes you take.

(1)

The Classic Method:

As Neg:

1AC

Response 1AR

Response 2AR

Response

Response

Response FF

Voters

Con 1:
W:
I:
Author
name,
title,
tagline
(info,
stat)

As Aff:
1NC

1NR

2NR

Response

FF

Voters

Same
LOL

(2) The Quaker Method:

US

THEM

Our Responses

Their Points

I. Abbreviations are great to help you write more down. An easy way to do this is just to take out
the vowels of words. For example: Jstc, Mrlty, Dmcrtc stand, respectively, for Justice, Morality,
and Democratic, which you can easily remember. Or create symbols to make it even easier like
capital J, M or D for Justice, Morality and Democratic again.

II. Write down more than just the tag line. The tag line is the point theyre making, like
Economics or Patriarchy. The tag is the overview to what theyre saying, which means they
should have analysis (warrants) behind the tag,. Sometimes, one tagline will have multiple
subpoints. Flowing allows you to write each of these points in an organized fashion so that you
can address all of the important points without missing anything. (a lot of debaters may try to be
sneaky and put a really strong argument as the third subpoint of a tagline hoping that the other
side will miss it).

III. Try to write down everything even if you are unsure of where to put it. Sometimes, debaters
get sloppy when it comes to telling you where to write stuff down on the flow. If you dont know
what theyre talking about, or arent sure where you should be writing down what theyre saying,
dont worry. This is what partners are for. They hear things too. And if, in the end, you and your
partner have no idea what your opponents are saying or where that point should be on the flow,
or what it means, then clarify it in crossfire. Likely, the judge will also be confused. This is a
communicative activity and they obviously screwed up by not being able to properly
communicate to you.

IV. Signposting. Signposting is a way for debaters to let the judge know where they are in
relation to the flow. When youre going down the flow and responding to many arguments,
signposting before responding to each argument allows the judge to keep a record of the things
you say. Arguments should have simple catch-phrases that let the judge and debaters know what

argument youre talking about. So when youre talking about an argument, preface it by
signposting with the catch-phrase. These catch phrases can be the paternalism argument or
the Russia argument. Remember, if the judge doesnt know what youre saying or how it is
relevant, she probably wont consider it to be important. You need to make sure that you specify
how all of your key analysis relates to the rest of the round. Signpost signpost signpost!!

V. Keep it legible. Youre going to be flowing quickly through the round and also thinking about
your own case and rebuttals, but keep your handwriting as legible as possible! One of the huge
benefits of having a partner is that he/she can help fill in spaces on the flow, think of rebuttals,
and build the case in round with you. But your partner can only help you if he/she can actually
read your flow.

VI. Draw lines. Segment your flow. Separate arguments even within your flow columns. Draw
arrows from argument to rebuttal. Do whatever you need to do so that when you stand up to give
a speech, youre not fumbling around trying to find where you wrote everything and which point
goes where in your speech.

The Argument (from Perspectives' A Brief Introduction to Lincoln Douglas Debate)

Arguments are more than mere assertions. If someone says motorcyclists ought to wear
helmets, they havent made an argument. Theyve only stated an opinion. But an opinion is not
good enough in debate. Debate requires substantive arguments that tell the judge why to choose
one opinion rather than another. In debate, there are three essential parts to an argument: claim,
warrant and impact. Here is what they mean:
Claim: What the argument is. This answers the what? question, what is the argument? This
will often be in your arguments tagline.
Warrant: The reason the argument is true. This answers the why? question, why is this true?
The evidence in favor of your argument.
Impact: The reason the argument matters in the round. This answers the so what? question, so
what if the argument is true? or why does it matter that the argument is true? It is incredibly
important to IMPACT your argument tell the judge why he/she should care enough to vote in
your favor. Teams often lose because they fail to impact, or explain why their case matters at all.
Each portion of the argument is absolutely essential and cannot be eliminated. If no warrant is
provided, the argument is unsubstantiated. If no impact is given, then the argument has no
relation to the round. By telling the judge your argument, why its true and why it matters, a
debater provides a well-structured argument that supports their position in the round. Here is an
example of a well-developed argument:
Claim: As compensation for the injustice of slavery, the US government ought to compensate
organizations like the NAACP that protect and promote the civil rights of African Americans.
Warrant: The US government pays individuals when it takes away their property (e.g. eminent
domain), when they become physically injured as a result of government action (e.g. injured
veterans of war), and when other fundamental freedoms are removed (e.g. compensation as a
result of civil litigation). Because slavery caused these harms to black Americans, the NAACP
and other prominent African American organizations ought to be compensated, in accordance
with treating all citizens equally.
Impact: The impact of this argument is that governments ought to make economic reparations for
past discriminatory actions, as otherwise, they would be treating particular minority groups
unequally under the law.

This is a well-developed, warranted, and impacted argument. You should have multiple warrants
and impacts to an argument. It makes it more difficult for your opponent to refute your argument.
They must take out multiple justifications to defeat your argument instead of just having to take
out one. The way to make an effective argument is to provide comprehensive answers for why
the argument is true and why it matters in the round.

10

Refutation
Now that you know how to make an argument, how do you effectively refute your opponents
argument? Here are 7 ways to refute an argument:
1. Deny the validity of the warrant: Argue that their argument is not true for X reason.
2. Show there is no warrant: Your opponents argument has no warrant, and so there is no
reason for why it is true.
3. No impact: Your opponents argument is justified, but it has no impact and so no reason for the
judge to consider it in the round.
4. Non-sequitur: In Latin, this means it does not follow. In other words, you are arguing that
your opponents argument has no logic as to why it connects at all. (They argue A leads to B
leads to C, but A does not lead to B, which does not lead to C).
5. Outweigh: You concede that your opponents argument is justified and the impact is true, the
entire argument is true. However, it is not as important as one of your arguments for some
reason. This technique works best when your argument clashes with theirs. For example, in a
debate about an invasion of X country, if they have an argument about harms to citizens of the
country (save lives!), you could outweigh by saying that the harms to the citizens of your own
country if you do nothing far outweighs any harms your opposition has presented.
6. Turn the argument: Your opponents argument really helps your side rather than theirs. If your
opponent says that they defend free speech on their side and thats a reason to vote for them, a
turn could be that free speech is a reason to vote in the round, but its a reason to vote for you
rather than them. As a more concrete example, lets turn back to the debate about legalizing
drugs. The government advocates legalizing drugs and makes a point about autonomy, that we
have to right to do to ourselves as we wish, and the governments job is defend that freedom, not
limit it. The opp can turn this argument by pointing out that drugs lead to addiction, which strips
people of their ability to make rational decisions, and thus in order to protect peoples true
autonomy, they have to protect against drug addiction.
7. Correlation vs. causality: The arguments and impacts your opponent brings forth may be
linked (have correlation), but they dont have a causal relationship. Many teams will try to say
that B happens because of A, and it can be effective to challenge their assumed causal link.
When responding to an argument, you can make several different responses that use different
forms of refutation. You can first attack the warrant, then attack the impact and say that it is a

11

non- sequitur. A variety of responses provides yourself even-if scenarios: even if you lose one
response, you can win on another.

12