How To Debate PF

Breaking Down Barriers:
How to Debate
Public Forum Section
Written by
Jim Hanson
with thanks to Joseph Zompetti, Des Weber,
Matt Rosenbaum, and Rick Brudage
for their assistance
Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate Public Forum Page 1
Breaking Down Barriers:

How to Debate
The Public Forum Section

Table of Contents
PUBLIC FORUM SECTION ..............................................Page
Public Forum Chapter 1: Introduction to Public Forum Debate ....... 2 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 2: Preparing a Public Forum Case................ 8 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 3: The Coin Flip ...................................... 24 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 4: Cross Fires ......................................... 27 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 5: The Summary Speech ......................... 43 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 6: Final Focus ......................................... 53 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 7: Tournament Preparation ...................... 61 Pub Forum
Public Forum Chapter 8: Adapting to Lay Judges ........................ 65 Pub Forum
Version 4.5a (2014 Edition) is

COPYRIGHT AUGUST, 2014.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sharing, Printing and Photocopying Breaking Down Barriers: How to

Debate
You may share electronic and print copies of the Breaking Down Barriers Textbooks
and Prepbooks with members of your team so long as you tell them and they agree
that they may share it only with people from your team. You may not share, give
access to, or distribute these books with anyone other than those on your
school’s team. If someone on your team makes major modifications to a page by
including material from other sources, then you may share that modified page with
people who are not on your team. For other situations, you can e-mail us at
jim@wcdebate.com and seek our consent.
West Coast Publishing

www.wcdebate.com
jim@wcdebate.com
West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Public Forum Chapter 1

Introduction to Public Forum Debate
History
The National Forensic League (NFL) first created the two person form of
public style debate we now know as Public Forum Debate in 2002 under the name
“Controversy.” In the early months of 2003 the events name was changed again to
“Ted Turner Debate,” the NFL having chosen to name its new even after a large
donor and former debater: Ted Turner, the founder of CNN. Later in the year the
NFL changed the name to Public Forum Debate, and it has officially been called that
since then; however on the local and regional level some people still refer to it as
“Controversy Debate” or “Ted Turner Debate.”
Since its creation, the Public Forum Debate format has been met with a great
deal of interest from programs all over the country. Better yet, because of the low
cost involved in Public Forum Debate, many new programs have been established
around it. While many sing the praises of the event, others consider it a “lazy” form
of debate allows for shallow argumentation and demagoguery. While it has both
fans and detractors there is no debate about its popularity: Public Forum Debate is
an exciting and popular forum for argumentation.
Explanation and Topics

Public Forum Debate can be very closely likened to the CNN program
“Crossfire.” It pits two teams of debaters against each other and has them engage
in debate over what is usually a popular issue of national importance in a fashion
that everyday people are capable of understanding. The topic changes every month
to keep the debates fresh and to focus debaters critical thinking skills on another
area of great importance.
Topics for Public Forum debate usually reflect current national controversies.
This means they tend to be taken from the headlines and important issues that
people and politicians are debating about. Topics can either be issue-oriented or
policy-oriented. An example of an issue-based resolution is “Resolved: The United
States is losing the War on Terror. ” While
the discussion on this topic would be about a
policy (the U.S. War on Terror), the debate
would focus on the issue of its success or
failure. There are also policy-oriented topics,
like “Resolved: The United States should
provide universal health insurance to all U.S.
citizens.” In contrast to issue-based
resolutions, this topic is concerned with a
policy that would affect the United States.
You will notice that topics about policies will
either be about policies that are already in existence, or proposed new policies like
the example above. The topic for each month is released at the beginning of the
preceding month (at www.nflonline.org). It is drafted and selected by a national
topic committee. Once a topic is released, it is time for you to think about and
construct arguments that relate to it. It is a good idea to come up with some

general areas or issues that you think relate to the topic. Do this before you go
research, since it will make it easier to use your time wisely and find useful
information. We will discuss this more in the next sections, when we talk about
researching and writing arguments for Public Forum topics.
This list shows some of the topics used in Public Forum Debate from 2013-
2014:
 Resolved: Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in
the Sahel region of Africa.
 Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
 Resolved: NATO should strengthen its relationship with Ukraine in order to
deter further Russian aggression.
 Resolved: Prioritizing economic development over environmental protection
is in the best interest of the people of India.
 Resolved: Single-gender classrooms would improve the quality of education
in American public schools.
 Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the
harms.
 Resolved: The Supreme Court rightly decided that Section 4 of the Voting
Rights Act violated the Constitution.
 Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent
nuclear proliferation.
Why do Public Forum Debate?

Public forum debate focuses on public speaking skills and analysis of current
issues. It prepares you, the student, for many instances in which you will be asked
to speak in front of an audience. Additionally, you will learn to grasp both sides of
controversial issues quickly and accurately. Understanding how to think through at
times complex issues is not a skill that is just for debaters. It will come in handy in
a variety of situations throughout your life. Effective communication is also a
primary goal of debate participation. Whether it is for a class or convincing
someone to hire you, your persuasive skills will be honed by participation in this
activity. Let’s look at some specific advantages to doing public forum debate.
THE FORMAT – SO YOU WANT TO BE THE MASTER OF SNAPPY

RESPONSES?
Public forum debate is an event that focuses on engaging your
audience. You will learn to catch your judge’s attention and keep it. Short
speech times means you will be a master at witty comebacks that decimate
the other team’s arguments. Your polished performances won’t just be fun
for your audience – you will have a good time too!
One of the most exciting parts of public forum debate is the Crossfire.
You get to grill your opponent on their arguments and practice your smart
retorts. Keep in mind that you will be put on the spot too, but knowing your
arguments will make that a breeze. Your partner gets to join in the fun in the
Grand Crossfire. This part of the round is an exchange between all four
participants in the round. You get to ask the other team questions and

challenge their claims. This is also where you engage your audience and the
judge and at the same time prove why you should win.
GETTING SMARTER – SO YOU

WANT TO GET OUT OF THE
LIBRARY?
Not all research is boring or
requires hours in the library. Doing
public forum debate will expose
you to research that can even be
fun. You get to read magazines
and surf the web. Sure, you’ll be
looking for pertinent information
about the topic, but there will be
plenty of time to discuss issues
with friends and teammates and
come up with new ideas on how to
solve old problems.
If you are worried about the
research burden, don’t be. Once
you have your cases written for a
topic, most of your research time
is over. You will work on polishing
your delivery and answering
questions. Public forum debate is
largely based on thinking on your
feet, which means tons of research
isn’t necessary.
EXPOSURE TO CURRENT EVENTS – SO YOU WANT TO IMPRESS YOUR

PARENTS?
Public forum topics change every month, which means you get a
chance to discuss many different issues and ideas. Also keep in mind that
each team you will face in debate rounds will have a different interpretation
of the topic. This means you hear a variety of perspectives and will hopefully
learn from all of them. Of course, by researching your own cases, you will be
exposed to many different ideas and controversies that can affect the lives of
millions of people.
Having a grasp of current events is beneficial in its own right. You can
surprise your parents with your knowledge of important topics at the dinner
table, for one. But it is also important for your own decision-making.
Sometimes you may debate about things that affect your own life. Public
forum topics often revolve around domestic policies that have a big impact
on people your age. For example, one recent resolution discussed the idea of
mandatory national service. Such a policy could significantly impact your
future plans, but it also holds implications for communities all over the
country.

Even if you think you are not interested in current issues, learning
about them builds the foundations of tackling other interests. In public forum
debate, you learn how to analyze an issue and get at the heart of the
controversy. Since public forum involves short preparation time and
relatively short speech times, you will quickly learn how to focus your
arguments. A good understanding of how to cut to the chase will come in
handy, whether you are writing a paper for a class or discussing a random
issue with your friends.
IMPROVING YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS – SO YOU WANT TO BE

RIGHT?
Have you ever had to speak in front of a group of people? Did you
follow the old advice of imagining your audience in their underwear? Either
way, you were probably nervous and spent most of your time trying not to
faint, instead of remembering what you were about to say. Believe it or not,
public forum debate will give you enough confidence never to have to
imagine people in their underwear again.
Whether it’s getting up in front of a group of people or presenting your
ideas in a concise and clear manner, doing public forum will help. Remember
that class presentation where you kept hiding behind your poster? There will
be no need to hide once you polish your public speaking skills in debate
rounds. You may not be talking about the same things, but writing cases and
practicing how to deliver them will do wonders for your confidence.
In addition to having more confidence, you will also learn how to
express your opinions clearly. Being persuasive isn’t just good for your
chances of winning debate rounds either. Your parents will notice it as well
next time you try to bargain for a later curfew! Just like the research skills
will come in handy, expressing what you want to say will make your paper
writing easier.
ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS – SO YOU

WANT TO FIND YOUR HOMEWORK?
Researching is part of any debate
activity and public forum is no different.
Participating in public forum means you
develop a good grasp of major sources of
information and some more specialized
ones. Even when your cases are written,
knowing the best sources of information
will come in handy for schoolwork and
other projects. While spending hours
researching might not be the most fun
activity, it will make writings papers that
much easier.
Actually writing cases will help you put ideas into logical order and
connect them in an easy to follow manner. This too is a good skill to have for
doing schoolwork. Maybe that talent will even let you write less, since you

are so good at expressing your ideas. The worst-case scenario is that you
impress your teachers and parents.
If you have ever misplaced your homework, you know how important
it is to keep things organized. Putting together evidence and backup for your
cases will hopefully sharpen those skills. There is nothing worse than not
having an answer in a debate round, when you know that you have it
somewhere - you just can’t find it. Hopefully you can avoid instances like
that by getting used to good organizational techniques.
INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE - SO YOU WANT TO MEET COOL PEOPLE?

By doing debate, you get to interact with lots of people. Your fellow
teammates, your partner, coaches, judges and other competitors will soon
become familiar to you. Tournaments are social experiences, in addition to
competitive and educational activities. Expect to have fun and meet new
people, whether in rounds or on the bus ride.
You will have plenty of opportunities to make friends with other people
at tournaments. It’s a great way to meet students from other schools that
you might not have met otherwise. You might get to spend your weekends
with your best friends and cheer them on.
Don’t forget your coaches and judges too. You might think they will be less
fun to hang out with, but you will inevitably learn a lot from them.
STRATEGIC DECISIONS – SO YOU WANT TO BE SNEAKY?

Do you reach decisions easily? Is your answer to that maybe? In any
case, public forum debate will test your decision-making skills. Each round
starts with a coin toss, but you must decide on more than just ‘heads’ or
‘tails.’ If you and your partner win the coin toss, you get to choose either to
go first or which side of the topic you want to defend. Your choice will play
into your strategy and might give you a leg up on your opponents.
Your quick decisions will also help you in rounds. By the time the other
team has tested your wits in the Crossfire, you will have to make choices
about which arguments to go for. Which ones are you winning the most?
Which arguments is the other team ahead on? Making strategic decisions in
debate rounds will help with all kinds of decisions you will have to make.
Picking Sides
Whereas in both Lincoln Douglas Debate and
Team Debate speaker sides are set with the affirmative
speaking first, official National Forensic League Public
Forum Debate rules specifically that there will be a flip
for sides. When Public Forum Debaters read postings to
find out who they are competing against (or “hitting” as
debater jargon would have it) there is no indication of
whether the will be defending the Pro or Con side of the
debate, this is decided by a coin flip minutes before the
round takes place. If a team wins the coin flip, they can
choose to speak first or second OR the can choose

whichever side of the case they want, but not both. If the team that wins the coin
flip chooses to speak second then the other teams gets to pick whether the want to
go Pro or Con. And if the team who wins the coin flip decides the go Con then the
other team decides if they would like to speak first or second.
In 2007 the National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL) finally added Public
Forum Debate to its list of offered events; however in the league you are randomly
assigned a side of the debate, and the Pro always speaks first.
Format
 A round of Public Forum Debate includes four constructive speeches in which
debaters present mostly pre-written arguments and do a small amount of
rebuttal work (usually in the 2nd constructive speech). These speeches are
the only time during a round of Public Forum Debate where debaters may
bring in new arguments
 Each constructive speech is followed by a “cross-fire” where debaters ask
each other questions.
 After the constructive speeches and respective “cross fires” there are two
rebuttal where debaters are not allowed to
bring in entirely new points, but rather rebut
attacks that have been placed on their
advocacies. After the rebuttal speeches there
is what is called “grand crossfire” where all
four debaters go back and forth asking and
answering questions.
 Following “grand cross fire” there are
two “final focus” or “final shot” speeches
where each team has 1 minute to crystalize
their advocacy.
A more in-depth discussion of each speech and “cross-fire” will be covered in their
respective chapters.
Judging
Public Forum Debate was designed by the National Forensic League to appeal
to common people, as such most (if not all of your judges) will be “lay” judges,
meaning that they have no formal debate experience.
Conclusion
Public Forum Debate is an exciting activity that focused on interesting
current issues. You’ll learn how to research and organize your thoughts into cogent,
strong, and appealing arguments!


Preparing a Public Forum Debate Case
Step 1- Define the terms in the resolution.
The first thing a Public Forum Debater should do before s/he starts
strategizing is to run screaming for the dictionary. Understanding the resolution is
key to effectively debating it. For the most part a household Merriam-Webster or
Oxford dictionary should do the job of shedding light on the meaning of the
resolution; however the more specific your sources, the deeper into the topic
specific literature that you go, the better off you will be. Sources like Lexis-Nexis
and JSTOR as well as any major news site or think-thank feature thousands of
articles that explain the intricacies of foreign policy and current events- topics that
you will have to explain to a host of lay judges. The more you know about the topic,
the more confidence you have in your stock of knowledge, the more ballots you will
get.
Whereas in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, the opening few sentences of a
constructive speech are often filled with definition after definition, this strategy only
serves to lessen a Public Forum Debaters greatest asset: his/her rhetorical
presence. Often times putting definitions into your Public Forum case is completely
unnecessary; however if you feel that an explanation of the topic is necessary you
should take the definitions you’ve found and place them in your own words, to
focus the debate without losing any of your pathos. This method has not only been
found to be effective, but if your interpretation comes into conflict with another you
have the rhetorical upper-
hand over the all too common
laundry list of definitions.
While understanding
the words in the resolution is
important, debating them can
be a very un-strategic option.
Many Public Forum Debaters
come from programs that
used to feature (or still do
feature) Team and Lincoln-
Douglas Debate, and while it
is acceptable to engage in
“topicality” debates in those
venues, quibbling over
definitions is considered a
“squirrelly” strategy in Public forum Debate. Plain and simple, no matter how
interesting you think your tricky interpretation of one word in the resolution is,
most judges won’t vote for it. Save yourself the heartache and debate the issues.
Step 2-Brainstorm
Write down a list of reasons and arguments that you think support your side of the
topic the best. If your research is already completed, use the best arguments that
you found. If you haven’t researched yet, take this brainstorming list as a guide to

finding evidence. You should come up with several (usually around three) separate
arguments that support your side of the topic. Remember that you also have to
come up with an interesting introduction and a reason why this topic is important to
discuss. Write those down as well.
Step 3-Choose Good Arguments

After having read and cut what should be a rather hefty amount of topic
specific literature, you should go through and select the evidence that you would
like to put in your case. When selecting your evidence you should ask yourself a
series of questions:
1) Which piece of evidence is the most offensive? No, you don’t want to
insult people, but you want evidence has oomph—makes a strong argument
for your side. “National Health Insurance will reduce thousands of
preventable diseases” is much stronger than “National Health Insurance
won’t hurt the nursing association.” Show your side is GOOD and your
opponent’s side is BAD.
2) Is the evidence from a reputable source? Getting evidence that says

what you want it to, is great; however the source of your evidence ought to
be able to have the qualifications to make informed assertions about the
topic at hand. Getting a piece of evidence on the state of Irans nuclear
program from an 8th grade biology teacher doesn’t gain you much ground,
and in comparison could serve to discredit you in front of a Public Forum
judge.
3) Is the evidence concise and understandable, or is it long-winded

and technical? Public Forum Debate is a venue that the National Forensic
League created to foster persuasive communication in front of “normal”
every day citizens. As such you should always consider your audience when
selecting your evidence. Reading sentence after sentence of specialized
jargon cut from an economics text book or a foreign policy journal will likely
tarnish your image in front of your judge. Your job is to persuade, so instead
of reading pages of evidence, read some evidence but explain it in your own
words: simplify the technical, because for better or for worse most Public
Forum Debate judges will vote for the team they understand.
Many teams around the country either minimize their use of evidence
substantially or have gotten rid of it altogether, relying only on their powers of
persuasion. While this tactic has been successful, it is no where near a sure thing.
Evidence definitely adds to the persuasive element of your advocacy- it should be
present, not overwhelming, and it should be explained clearly so as to give you the
competitive edge.
Step 4-Prepare the Actual Case

There are four major areas to a case. Organize your information into the four
areas described below.

I. Introduction to the topic

Give a quick explanation of the issue at hand. You may want to state the
resolution and then explain why it is an important concern. You can use a
quotation or explanatory example to help your judge and opponents
understand what the topic is about.
II. Definition of terms

It is important that everyone is on the same page about what the topic
means. To make this clearer, provide a brief explanation or definition of the
important terms in the resolution. Sometimes the topics is self-explanatory,
in which case it is up to the judge to interpret the meaning of the topic.
III. Arguments for your Case

This is the bulk of your case. Provide a clear explanation of the reasons you
have identified to prove your case. Set apart each major reason or argument,
so that your judge understands that you have independent reasons to vote
for you. Pay careful attention to transitions and having an outline that is easy
to follow. Also keep in mind that you should have a variety of arguments.
One can be an anecdote; one can be an example from the news; one can be
a larger reason why you are right.
PROBLEM-SOLUTION CASE ARGUMENTS

This is typically used for topics that call for a change in government policy.
The basic structure goes like this: 1) There is a serious problem; 2) The
Resolution provides a way to solve this problem
EXAMPLE
1. Media monopolies squelch political expression

(evidence/reasoning/support)
2. Media monopolies harm democracy

3. Diversifying media provides democratic expression of

political argument.
GIVE REASONS CASE ARGUMENTS

This is typically used for topics that support the current policy or that make a
statement that you are trying to prove.
The basic structure goes like this: 1) First Reason for the Resolution; 2)
Second Reason for the Resolution; etc.
EXAMPLE
1. The Patriot Act deters terrorism

2. The Patriot Act respects people’s civil rights

3. The Patriot Act prevents general crime.

See “Support for your Case” Later in this Chapter.
See the Example Pro Case and Con Arguments at the end of this
chapter.
IV. Conclusion
Summarize the topic and your reasons for supporting or negating it. Give
your judge a quotation or last example so that your case sticks in their mind.
Answer the question ‘why does this matter’ and you will have a good start to
convincing the judge of your case.
Step 5: Prepare Backup

In some instances, you may want to save some of the evidence you don’t use in
your case for backup. You might have more statistics or a poll that proves your
case but isn’t good enough to include in your first speech. Evidence like this is
especially useful if your opponents challenge your claims or maybe even your
source. Have these ready at hand in your rounds, in case you should need them.
PREPARE “CON” RESPONSES

When you are researching and writing your cases, think about possible
arguments that other teams could use. You will have to debate teams who use
different justifications than you, and you want to be prepared to answer them. The
more you know about the topic in general, the better you will be at thinking on your
feet and refuting the opposition.
Once you have some experience with topics, you will be able to predict some
of the arguments that other teams will make. In such cases, you can prepare
possible answers. You may use evidence to support your answers. Write an outline
of what you think the other team’s argument will be. Then generate a list of
answers that assume the original argument. Use analytical arguments as well as
timely examples and some evidentiary support.
Keep in mind that there are certain guidelines to answering your opponent’s
arguments. You should respond to their arguments on point in an attempt to
directly refute their claims. Your responses must be “on topic” which means that
they shouldn’t critique the notions behind or underlying your opponent’s
arguments. You are also not allowed to propose alternate ideas to support instead
of what your opponent proposes, if they are not closely tied to defending your side
of the resolution.

Each judge you debate in front of will have a slightly different understanding of
these rules. Talk it over with your coach or teammates to see what acceptable
responses are.
CASE TIPS
Tip 1- Chose your words carefully

One of the greatest assets you will come away from Public Forum Debate
with is a greater control over your word economy. Your first two constructive are
only 4 minutes long, so you cant be too verbose. Learning to say what you want to
say in the minimum amount of words can be a frustrating skill to learn, but if you
are to be successful in Public Forum Debate it is one that you are going to have to
learn.
While you may want to cram as much flowery language into your speech as
possible because you think it makes it sound “pretty”- think twice. If the
communication skills of President George W. Bush have taught us anything, it is
that sometimes it is better to be more prosaic then it is to attach all sorts of bells
and whistles to your speech. Remember to always keep your audience in mind, you
are talking to mostly mothers and fathers. If after you write your speech you are
unsure of whether or not your language is concise and understandable, ask to
perform in front of your family, or better yet your English class.
While it important to make your language assessable, it is very important

that you are sure not to insult your judge by talking down to them. Don’t treat your
judge like they’re stupid, this will only anger them and lose you ballots. Perception
is very important; if people find you insulting they are less likely to vote for you.
The best example of the effects of persuasion is the presidential debates between
then Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy. While Richard
Nixon was ahead on the “hard facts” debate, the majority of people watching gave
the “round” to Senator Kennedy because of the way he spoke and the way he
presented himself. You can be a Nixon and always be right but at the end of the
day being a persuasive Kennedy will bring you the greatest success.
Tip 2-Opening your speech

It is an altogether terrible idea to jump right into a laundry list of arguments
when delivering your speech. You always want to have some sort of opening hook,
that gets your audience interested. Some teams use a quote, and others use a
short anecdote to personalize and connect their judge to the topic. You want the
first few sentences of your speech to be powerful. Buy a quote book and keep it
with your debate materials. Some bookstores have public speaking sections, you
should definitely peruse those for helpful things. Another tool to aid you in opening
your speech is a small story book. These short anecdotes are perfect for your
speech because they are very short, yet allow you to “give a soul” to what can
sometimes a be a dry topic.

Tip 3- Prepare the Case as a team.

While your teams’ second speaker may well not ever read the first speech it
is important that both partners have a hand in writing ALL speeches, not just those
that they personally deliver. This helps to assure that both partners are familiar
with the arguments being strategically employed. Having one partner that is very
up to snuff on topic information and one that is much less so, does no team any
good. Writing speeches together not only fosters team building skills that are
intrinsically valuable to a debate partnership, but also helps to ensure knowledge of
all of the arguments. There is no “I” in “Team.” :)
Tip 4-Practice your speech.

Which ever children’s movie said that “practice makes perfect” was
completely correct. After you and your partner are finished with your speeches read
them out loud as much as you can, and if possible perform in front of audiences.
After each performance ask the audience for their opinions, ask them what they
think you should improve. This is the best way to polish your skills for tournaments,
because it allows you to see what normal citizens (like the ones you will be judged
by in-round) think.
Here are a list of things you should ask your practice audience after your
performance:
1) What do you think about the

debate topic?-Be sure to listen to see
if they mention anything you said in
your speech. Seeing how much of
your information stuck in the head of
your audience is a wonderful way to
gauge the rhetorical power of your
speech
2) How was my speed?-As a general

rule of thumb Public Forum Debate
judges are not friendly to speedy
talking; however it is hard for some
people to realize how fast they are
speaking when they are actually
performing. You want your voice to
be clear and slow
3) Did I look confident- Judges,

especially those in Public Forum
Debate are very aware of
competitors body language- it can
make or break your judges view of you.

Take your audiences suggestions to heart, and after each performance change your
speech and delivery accordingly.
Tip 5- The 2nd Constructive Speech

Writing your first constructive is a must. Some teams think its unnecessary,
that doing the whole debate extemporaneously will garner them success; however
these sort of teams are short-lived, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK.
The second constructive speech is a whole other animal. Many teams pre-
write the majority of this speech, some don’t pre-write any of it at all, and others
just pre-write a small “overview” for the speech. There is really no “right” way to do
the second speech. For teams that are just starting out, or ones that are unfamiliar
with any sort of organized scholastic debate it is suggested you write at least half of
your second speech. This allows for you to have a bit of a crutch to fall back on.
As debaters get more seasoned they develop speech mannerisms and
techniques related to the second constructive speech that allow them to deliver the
second constructive speech without any pre-written notes.
The bottom line is that you should do what you are most comfortable with,
and do it as best as you can.
Tip 6-Arts and Crafts

Many Public Forum Debaters get up in front of their judge with a series of stapled
papers, and while it might not seem like a big deal to you don’t do this. Many
debaters, like most public speakers have a tendency to “fijit” and shake their
papers making a horrible rattling sound that can sometimes disrupt the judge, or at
least lower your speaker points. This seemingly harmless problem can be solved by
cutting your speech out and taping it to a legal pad. Not only does it make you look
more professional in front of a lay judge but it minimizes any unwanted noise your
case might make flapping in the wind.
You can of course go a step further and put your legal pad in a portfolio. The
more professional you look, the better you look to a judge
SUPPORT FOR YOUR CASE
QUOTATIONS
This is the most common way in which you will support the
arguments in your case.
1. FIREARMS IN THE HOME INCREASES THE RISK OF SUICIDE

Linda L. Dahlberg et al, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
November 15, 2004.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, p. 935.
Our findings also suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases
the chance that a homicide or suicide in the home will be committed with a
firearm rather than by using other means. Victims of suicide living in homes

with guns were more than 30 times more likely to have died from a
firearm-related suicide than from one committed with a different method.
Guns are highly lethal, require little preparation, and may be chosen over
less lethal methods to commit suicide, particularly when the suicide is
impulsive. Suicidal persons may also be more likely to acquire a gun to
commit suicide and, given the lethality of the weapon, are more likely to
complete suicide, although the evidence on this point is mixed (20–22).
Evidence Supports
Evidence supports give solid, credible proofs for the points that you
present. Quotations are one kind of Evidence Support but so are Statistics,
expert opinion, and facts.
STATISTICS: Specific numbers--usually from studies

EXAMPLE: According to the CDC’s 2002 annual report, “Health, United
States,” in 2000, 16.8%, or 40.5 million Americans under age 65 lack
health care. 12.4% of children under age 18 were also uninsured in
2000.
FACTS: Specific data about your subject.

EXAMPLE: According to CBS News
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/14/iraq/main553873.shtml),
the US military utilized a new Hellfire missile in the war on Iraq. This new
missile can take out the first floor but leave the rest of a building
standing.
INTERVIEW DESCRIPTIONS: Specific arguments made by

someone you interviewed.
EXAMPLE: I spoke with Suzanne Reynolds at the recycling center. She
told me that recycling can reduce the need to use more aluminum, glass
and plastic by up to 80% if everyone would just recycle.
STUDIES OR SURVEYS: Results and conclusions from studies or

surveys.
EXAMPLE: While green tea has long been lauded as a potent source of
antioxidants, a new study by Milton Schiffenbauer and his colleagues at
Pace University suggests that green tea also helps combat infection-
causing bacteria. According to a May 21, 2003 news statement from
Scientific American Online, “They found that green tea extracts and
polyphenols--particularly those from caffeinated beverages--inhibited
bacterial growth. Adding these agents to toothpaste and mouthwash, he
notes, may make them more effective at combating microbial agents.”

EXPERT OPINION: The ideas and arguments of authorities on

your subject.
EXAMPLE: Olof Palme, former leader of Sweden and a United Nations
development council activist, made the point clear: large military
spending is a death sentence for millions of third world people because it
diverts all the resources to weapons and away from food.
Interest Supports Vivid Supports

Interest supports develop your points by The purpose of using
increasing your audience’s attention. They also supports is to make
encourage people to visualize your ideas and your speech better
thoughts in their minds. supported and more
interesting. Short, flat
EXAMPLES: Specific incidences of your supports fail this goal.
subject. So, include interesting,
EXAMPLE: Despite our technologically advanced well developed
society, everyday products are often recalled supports.
for simple manufacturing errors. For example, WEAK/FLAT SUPPORT
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission “Many stores like K-
issued a recall of 2,400 multipurpose lighters, Mart are improving
painted silver and red to resemble matchsticks their layouts.”
that child could operate and burn themselves. MORE VIVID SUPPORT
Many Stores are
STORIES: Detailed accounts of the improving their layouts.
experiences of others. For example, K-Mart
EXAMPLE: The Associated Press reported on has spent 1.6 billion
May 19, 2003 that in a prank echoing Keanu dollars refurbishing
Reeves’ movie Speed, a Virginia truck driver stores with new
was led to believe that explosives rigged to his electronics and
vehicle would explode if he drove below a homeware sections. In
certain speed limit. After calling 911, the driver fact, one K-Mart was
was instructed to drive to a parkway that was recently nominated . .
“closed for three hours while authorities .”
searched the tractor-trailer. No explosives were
found and no charges were filed.”
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES: Detailed accounts of your experiences.
EXAMPLE: Traveling on the bus for short distances isn’t so bad. I ought
to know. I used Greyhound all the time to travel between Seattle and
Bellingham where I went to school. It’s a nice quiet ride. But long
distance is nothing short of hell. On a trip from Cleveland, Ohio to
Seattle, I faced three days without being able to shower and the smell of
fellow passengers in the same bus. Sleep was almost impossible. Just try
to sleep on one of those seats at 6 A.M. with a baby bawling its head off

right behind you. I was so tired by the time we got to Spokane, I fell
asleep in the bus terminal and almost missed the bus out. Skip the
cross-country bus. Take a plane. Stay home. Do anything--just avoid
long distance bus travel.
HUMOR: Avoid canned jokes--but make people laugh.

EXAMPLE: I cannot believe how they work these answering services. Do
you notice that there is never a real person on the line? (Imitating the
phone service) “If you want the registrar, please push 1. If you want
transcripts, please push 2.” So, I push 2. Then I get another list of
choices. Then another. And another. Finally, I get the right machine and
it says, “We’re not open now. Call back tomorrow.”
EXAMPLE PRO CASE ON A HANDGUN TOPIC
In the wake of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, there has been a new
flurry of debate about whether stronger gun control laws are needed to
prevent murders. We believe that such laws are needed and stand
“Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be
banned in the United States.” To support this topic, we note that
Initially, we note FIRST that GUN OWNERSHIP INCREASES THE

CHANCE OF SUICIDE
November 15, 2004.
There was a significant sex-by-gun-in-the-home interaction for suicide.
Males with firearms in the home were at a significantly greater risk of suicide
than males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95
percent confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Females with firearms in the home
were also at an elevated risk of suicide compared with females without guns
in the home, but the difference was only borderline significant (adjusted
odds ratio = 2.3, 95 percent confidence interval: 1.0, 5.0). Other important
predictors of suicide risk included young age (<35 years), suicidal ideation,
and symptoms of depression and anxiety in the last month of life (p < 0.01).
Living alone was borderline significant (p = 0.05).
These indicators show the tragic consequences of gun ownership.
Further, SECOND, FIREARM OWNERSHIP INCREASES ACCIDENTAL
DEATHS
Matthew Miller et al, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at
Harvard, July 2005.
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION, p. 661.

Two empirical studies (a case–control study (Wiebe, 2003) and an ecologic

study (Miller et al., 2001)) have evaluated whether household firearm
ownership is related to the rate of unintentional firearm deaths in the United
States. Both found a strong relation between household firearm ownership
and rates of unintentional firearm deaths.
This damaging effect does not just affect the gun owners—it affects
terrible, violent crime as we note THIRD: GUN OWNERSHIP
INCREASES THE RISK OF VIOLENT DEATH
November 15, 2004.
The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an
association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those
persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those
without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to
other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who
in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The
findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are
also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when
compared with suicide, are not as strong. Studies that have examined the
risk of either violent victimization or perpetration at the individual level
show relative risks between 1.4 and 2.7 (14, 20, 23, 24). Our findings are
also in this range.
These findings call out for action and that is why we support the
resolution’s call to ban private handgun ownership in our FOURTH
POINT, THE BEST STUDIES SHOW GUN RESTRICTIONS DECREASE
DEATHS OVERALL
Ik-Whan G. Kwon, Professor at the John Cook School of Business and Daniel
W. Baack, doctoral student in International Business and Marketing at the
John Cook School of Business, April 2005.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & SOCIOLOGY, p. 545.
THIS STUDY USED A UNIQUE APPROACH to measure the effect of gun
control laws on firearm deaths. By using a holistic measure, our research is
able to more effectively address this issue than other studies. Multi-variate
statistical analysis reveals that it is not a single gun-related law in a state
that links to the numbers of gun-related fatalities but rather composite
legislation on gun control along with other socioeconomic issues. Our
research indicates that states with most comprehensive gun control
legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related
fatalities than those states with the most lax laws. Gun control laws are a
deterrent; however, they only address one aspect of individual behavior
regarding the use (and abuse) of firearms.

Gun restrictions stop fatalities in the home and FIFTH, GUN

CONTROL CAN TAKE WEAPONS OUT OF CRIMINAL HANDS
Philip J. Cook, Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke University and Jens
Ludwig, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University,
November 2004.
FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, p. 598-599.
A direct indication that even criminally active people can be persuaded to
give up guns comes from systematic evaluations of policy interventions. The
best known one is probably Boston's Operation Ceasefire, instituted by a
consortium of law enforcement agencies in 1996 in response to a very high
rate of gun violence among local gangs. 54 Gang members were directly
informed by the police that the entire gang would be held accountable if any
one member was known to have misused a gun. An abrupt and sustained
drop in deadly gang violence followed. Figure 1 depicts the annual gun-
homicide counts from 1981 to 1999 for youths age fifteen to twenty- four,
for Boston (Suffolk County), and for the rest of Massachusetts, which can be
considered a sort of control group.
We urge an end to the violence. We urge action to ban private
handgun ownership. Stop the suicides, accidental deaths, and the
violent crime. Vote in favor of the resolution.

EXAMPLE CON EVIDENCE ON A HANDGUN TOPIC

GUN ACCESS DECREASES CRIME
1. EASY ACCESS TO HANDGUNS DECREASES VIOLENT CRIME

John Lott, Visiting Professor at the State University of New York, 2006.
STRAIGHT SHOOTING, p. 6.
During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was
greatly liberalizing individuals’ abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-
called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a
criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around
three to five hours’ worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average.
Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during
the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes
2. HANDGUNS DECREASE CRIME

Capt. Tracy W. Price, pilot for a major airline and a leaders in the effort to arm airline pilots after
9/11, April 30, 2007.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, p. A17.
In fact, research by economist and author John Lott and Bill Landes shows that states that allow law-
abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public
shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack. The Commonwealth of Virginia allows
concealed carriage of handguns (except in "defenseless zones") after a criminal background check,
and we have lower crime rates overall than nearby states with more restrictive gun laws. In a state
like Virginia, where law-abiding citizens can legally purchase guns and carry them concealed, it is no
surprise the Virginia Tech killer chose one of Virginia's "defenseless zones" for his attack.
3. HANDGUNS DECREASE CRIME—THE BEST STUDIES SHOW

Daniel Polsby, Professor of Law at George Mason University, August/September 1998.
REASON, Accessed 5/20/07, http://www.reason.com/news/show/30703.html
Every bit of this, we now know, has been wrongheaded and perverse. Since 1977, the U.S.
Department of Justice has kept statistics on the most serious crimes (such as murder, rape, and
robbery) in the 3,054 counties of the United States. In 1997 Lott and his collaborator, David Mustard
(who was then a University of Chicago graduate student and is now a professor of economics at the
University of Georgia), published an analysis of these data, the largest econometric study of crime and
violence ever done, in The Journal of Legal Studies. Their electrifying conclusion was that liberalizing
concealed-carry laws drives down rates of confrontational crime, with the effect most pronounced in
the counties where the problem of criminal violence is worst. Apparently, when more people are on
the streets packing heat, criminals tend to redirect their predatory activities into lines where they are
less apt to meet armed resistance. The results of the Lott-Mustard study, updated by several years
and amplified by the analysis of additional variables, are the core of More Guns, Less Crime.
4. HANDGUN POSSESSION DECREASES CRIME

Daniel Polsby, Professor of Law at George Mason University, August/September 1998.
REASON, Accessed 5/20/07, http://www.reason.com/news/show/30703.html
It is hard to be certain of the exact numbers (because, for instance, some states freely issue carry
permits to nonresidents), and in any case we do not know how possessing a permit affects the actual
carrying of firearms. But one cannot reason that, because a legal regime that inspires 1 or 2 percent
of the population to get a carry permit does not increase but actually decreases murders, rapes, and
other confrontational crimes, a legal regime that would inspire 10 or 20 percent of the population to
get licenses would be similarly benign.

GUNS ARE KEY TO PREVENT INCIDENTS LIKE THE VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING
1. RIGHT TO CARRY LAWS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE MULTIPLE VICTIM PUBLIC SHOOTINGS
John Lott, visiting professor in economics at the State University of New York, April 19, 2007.
THE AUSTRALIAN, p. 10.
Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in
the US from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple-
victim public shootings fell by 60 per cent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings
fell even further, on average by 78 per cent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer
victims per attack. Law enforcement -- usually the most effective means of stopping crime -- had
little effect on multiple-victim shootings simply because more than 70 per cent of these killers, such as
Cho Seung-Hui, the killer at Virginia Tech, die at the scene of their crimes. Culpability is negligible. No
other gun-control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that
consistently reduced the frequency of these attacks.
2. CONCEALED GUNS ARE KEY TO STOP MULTIPLE-VICTIM SHOOTINGS

To the extent that attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the
places where concealed hand guns were still banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-
victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason: increasing the
probability that someone will be able to protect themselves increases deterrence. Even when any
single person might have a small probability of having a concealed hand gun, the probability that at
least someone in the crowd will have a gun is very high. While right-to-carry laws -- now operating in
40 states -- do reduce violent crime generally, the effect is much larger for multiple-victim shootings.
Normally about 2 to 6 per cent of adults in any state have permits, and for most crimes that means
some deterrence. But for a shooting in a public place where there might be dozens or hundreds of
people, it will almost ensure that at least someone -- someone who is unknown to the attacker -- will
be able to defend themselves and others.
3. GUNS STOP MULTIPLE-VICTIM KILLINGS

William Hoar, writer for the John Birch Society, December 25, 2006.
THE NEW AMERICAN, p. 42.
Discussing how the presence of armed citizens affects crime rates,in his book More Guns, Less Crime,
then-University of Chicago Professor John Lott examined all the multiple-victim public shootings in the
United States from 1977 to 1995. The only policy that had a discernible effect on those shootings was
when citizens were able to legally carry concealed weapons. Those states that had approved such
"right to carry" laws experienced a decline in multiple-victim public shootings by an average of 84
percent. Indeed, an analysis of the latest FBI crime statistics (for 2005) indicates that the states
where there were no right-to-carry laws average 27.8 percent higher violent crime rates than states
where citizens can legally carry firearms. Obviously there are other variables involved, including the
preponderance of urban areas in one state compared to another. Yet, is there any doubt that if the
numbers were reversed that the haters of the right to keep and bear arms would say this was proof
that "gun control" was effective against crime?

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT LIMIT CRIMINAL ACCESS TO WEAPONS
1. GUN BANS DO NOT LIMIT CRIMINAL ACCESS TO WEAPONS

STRAIGHT SHOOTING, p. 5
There is another more serious difficulty: you don’t have to live next to the United States to see how
hard it is to stop criminals from getting guns. The easy part is getting law-abiding citizens to disarm.
The hard part is getting the guns from criminals. The drug gangs that are firing guns in places such as
Toronto seem to have no trouble getting the drugs that they sell and it should not be any more
surprising that they can get the weapons they need to defend their valuable property.
2. GUN CONTROL LAWS ONLY RESTRAIN NON-CRIMINALS

The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily
the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws. Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its
gun-free zone policy and suspended students with concealed hand-gun permits who have tried to
bring hand guns on to school property. But whether it is the three-year prison terms that can await
those who take guns on to property of K-12 schools in most states, or the suspensions and expulsions
at universities, these penalties are completely meaningless for someone intent on killing.
3. GUN CONTROL DOES NOT IMPINGE CRIMINAL ACCESS

William Hoar, writer for the John Birch Society, December 25, 2006.
THE NEW AMERICAN, p. 42.
As it happens, however, criminals who ignore laws against, say, murder and armed robbery don't
mind also flouting prohibitions against gun ownership. Since 1977, as the Washington Times noted not
long ago, the District of Columbia has had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet, between
2000 and 2005, approximately 80 percent of the murders in D.C. were perpetrated with guns. "Overall
homicide levels in the District," commented the Times, "are troublingly high and have not been helped
by gun control. Which is no wonder: Violent criminals can wield guns confident that they will not get
caught, and confident that law-abiding people will not have guns themselves."
4. GUN CONTROL CANNOT STOP CRIMINAL ACCESS—EVEN PROPONENTS CONCED

Jesse Matthew Ruhl et al, Masters of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, Spring 2004.
KANSAS JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY, p. 449-450.
Michael Beard, director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has stated that, "clearly no law [is] going
to prevent criminals from getting handguns or any weapon they want ... you can't take weapons away
from criminals." Josh Sugarmann, head of the Violence Policy Center, echoes this sentiment:
"handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns." and Washington D.C. 362
have, for all practical purposes, banned the private ownership of handguns; they are also well known
for having two of the highest crime rates in the country.

OTHER COUNTRIES PROVE GUN CONTROL IS INEFFECTIVE
1. GUN CONTROL DOES NOT DECREASE VIOLENT CRIME—JAPAN PROVES

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, May 26, 2007.
Accessed 5/27/07, http://www.nranews.com/blogarticle.aspx?blogPostId=236
Japan already has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. In fact, Japan's firearms laws state,
"No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms." And according to Dave Kopel, an expert on
international gun-control laws, there are few exceptions. If you're a Japanese resident, you can't
legally own a handgun or a rifle, only a shotgun. But despite these laws, violent crime is increasing in
Japan.
2. OTHER COUNTRIES PROVE GUN BANS FAIL AND INCREASE CRIME

STRAIGHT SHOOTING, p. 5-6
The experience in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to
monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned
handguns in 1997 but rrecently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the
four years from 1998/1999 to 2002/2003. Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were
banned. Yet since 1996, the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%; robbery is up by 45% and
murder is up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as
soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up—almost to their 1993 levels.
3. AUSTRALIA PROVES GUN CONTROL INCREASES VIOLENT CRIME

STRAIGHT SHOOTING, p. 6.
Australia has also seen its violent crime rate soar to rates similar to Britain’s immediately after its
1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years
after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The
same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.
THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL GUN OWNERSHIP
1. THE CONSTITUTION DOES PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Daniel C. Palm, Associate Professor of Political Science, Azusa Pacific University, February 8, 2005.
Accessed 5/20/07, http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.404/pub_detail.asp
Indeed, an individual right to arms makes perfect sense if the Second Amendment is read in light of
the Declaration. Individuals are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and government's task is
simply "to secure these rights." But government, like any human institution, might become corrupt,
failing in its duty to secure rights: When "any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." If faced with "absolute despotism"—surely to be
distinguished from poor policies or misinformed leadership—"it is their right, it is their duty to throw
off such government" and institute "new Guards" to secure their rights. If rights belong to the people,
and government exists to secure those rights, privately held arms logically stand as the people's final
means to protect their liberties, and the means for restoring rightful government. In fact, privately
owned arms stand as a deterrent to the imposition of tyranny in the first place.


The Coin Flip
Although it happens before the debate even begins and takes only a few
short moments to accomplish, the coin flip is one of the most important elements of
any Public Forum Debate. It has a very significant role in shaping the development
of the entire round and requires that each team make some very important
decisions. The strategic considerations that go into the coin flip should therefore not
be undervalued.
The Basics of the Flip

The flip of a coin occurs before every single
debate round. One team tosses a coin and the other
team calls “heads” or “tails.” You may want to carry a
coin around with you during tournaments to make sure
things run smoothly. You and your partner may even
want to use a lucky coin to improve your chances of
winning the flip! If you do happen to have a coin with
you, go ahead and offer it up for the flip. If you don’t
have a coin, quickly find someone who does. If the
other team flips the coin, you and your partner should
decide before the coin is tossed which of you is going to
call it to avoid confusion. Some debaters are
superstitious and always call a particular side of the coin.
If you win the flip, you may choose either the side of the topic your team
wishes to defend (pro or con) or you can choose the speaking position your team
wishes to have (speak first or speak last). If you lose the flip, once the winners of
the toss select their option, then you make a choice within the other option. So, for
example, if you lost the coin flip and the other side decided to call “pro,” then you
would have your pick between speaking first and last. If you lost the flop and the
other side decided to call “speaking last,” then you would have your pick between
pro and con.
The logic behind this rule is similar to the logic behind the toss of a coin at
the beginning of a football game: the winner of the toss gets choose either between
kicking and receiving or which side of the field they wish to defend. If the winner
chooses to kick, the loser gets to pick which side of the field they want to defend.
Keep in mind that the con side can speak first. Since both sides know the
topic ahead of time, the con can argue against the topic generally, before even
hearing the pro side’s arguments.
How to handle the Flip

Now that we’ve discussed the logistics of the coin flip, let’s back up for a
minute. We have neglected an important step that must occur before the coin is
even thrown. You and your partner should know what option you are going to pick,
if you do win the flip, before the flip happens. You should be ready to declare your
decision immediately after seeing which side of the coin has landed face up. You
should consult directly with your partner about what the ideal scenario would be.

In addition, you should try to plan for the less-than-ideal scenario. Since
there are a finite number of options that the other side can pick, you can decide
before the flip what you are going to do if you do lose the flip. Mentally explore
each possible scenario by discussing with your partner, “If they pick pro, we’ll want
to pick…(speak first or last)” and “If they pick con we’ll pick….(speak first or last)”
Also ask yourselves, “If they pick to speak first, we’ll pick…(pro or con)” and “If
they pick to speak last, we’ll pick…(pro or con).”
With practice, these conversations between you and your partner will begin
to run smoothly and will be brief since you will get a better idea of your own
preferences as a team with time. However, there is a potential for disagreement
between teammates, especially when you are first beginning to debate with little
experience. Make sure there is a consensus between you and your partner before
engaging in the coin flip with the other team. If there is a disagreement between
partners in front of the other team, spectators or most importantly the judge your
credibility as a team will be damaged. Furthermore, bickering during the flip wastes
precious time you can be using to prepare for the debate round itself. If you and
your partner have a habit of disagreeing about the flip, try to talk to a debate coach
or teacher to help you mediate and avoid the problem in the future.
At this point you are probably wondering: how do I know which option to pick
after the flip and once I pick the option that I want control over, how do I decide
what I should pick within that option? There are several factors that can influence
your decision; however the differences between the speaking positions (speaking
first or speaking last) almost always remain constant.
It may be tempting to pick the first speaker position, since it allows your
team to start off the debate with a bang, creating a good impression with the
judge. It also allows your team to set the tone for the debate since you are
speaking first. Although this is a nice bonus of speaking first, I would argue that it
is almost always going to be more beneficial to speak last that it is to speak first.
Speaking last is generally a more advantageous position for several reasons.
First, it puts your opponent on the spot, forcing them to speak first. More
importantly, it gives you a chance to hear all of your opponent’s arguments before
your last speech. This is an incredible advantage because it means you have a
chance to respond to everything the other team has said. Conversely, the other
team does not get a chance to respond to your final speech. Speaking last,
therefore, gives you the literal “final word.” The reasons to prefer the last speaker
position are similar to the reasons it is beneficial to be last to bet in a game of
poker: you get a sneak peak into what your opponent’s strategy is going to be for
that hand. For example, if your opponent bets a lot of money and your hand is
mediocre, you have the opportunity to get out of the hand without spending a
dime. It is also beneficial to be the last speaker since your last speech will be the
speech that is most fresh in the judge’s mind when he or she makes a decision
about which team won the debate.
Now, you and your partner must decide which is more important: speaking
last or having control over who is pro and who is con. Since a new topic is
announced each month, your priorities will probably vary depending on the topic. In
addition, each individual round will present you will additional factors that will have
a bearing on what is more important to you. Let’s discuss all of the factors that
could influence your decision.

The first factor is the topic itself. Every now and then the topic ends up being
biased in favor of one side over the other. If this bias is very extreme, you will
probably prefer to have control over which side of the topic you will advocate rather
than which speaker position you have. You don’t want to put yourself in the middle
of a losing battle. If you think the topic is somewhat biased, but are still unsure of
what to pick, ask yourself, “Is the last speaker advantage enough for us to
overcome the side bias of this topic?”
Luckily, this is not the only factor that will affect your decision. The judge is
arguably the most important factor in determining how you approach the debate
round. Any adult from your community can judge you in a Public Forum Debate.
You may be judged by a local businessperson or a librarian, for example. Knowing a
little information about the judge’s background, profession or personal beliefs can
have a tremendous impact on which side of the debate you’ll pick to be on. For
example, if your judge is a public school teacher, you probably don’t want to be on
the pro side of a topic that says funding for public schools should be cut back. If
you don’t know anything about your judge, you and your partner should discretely
ask other people at the tournament about the judge. It can be especially helpful to
find the team that was judged by the same person the round before yours, and ask
them about what kinds of feedback the judge gave after the last debate.
Another factor that can help you decide which side to choose is your record
as a team. Have you had more success so far on the con side of the topic or the pro
side? If you have lost every single time you’ve gone pro with a given topic this may
be a sign that you should avoid going pro (in addition to fine tuning your pro
arguments). Play to your strengths in every way possible.
Furthermore, play to your opponent’s weaknesses. If you know the other
team has had a lot of success going con on a particular topic, you may want to
choose to go con. This will hopefully pull the rug from underneath the opposing
team’s topic side advantage. However, if you would rather be on the pro side of the
topic, you can more confidently pick to speak last instead of picking the topic side
(knowing already what the other team will most likely decide to do).
The most difficult part of your decision will be weighing the different factors.
You will have to use your own good judgment to determine whether your record of
success should have more or less bearing on your decision than the judge’s
background, for example. These decisions will become infinitely easier to make with
a little experience.
Conclusion
The coin flip is an exciting way to learn about debate strategy and it adds an
element of variation to your debate rounds. It has a tremendous bearing on the
structure of each debate round. If you and your partner put some thought into your
flip strategy, you will have a huge advantage over those teams who blow it off as
insignificant. So, start practicing your flick of the thumb!


Cross Fires
Have you ever watched a political talk show on television, such as The
McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Hardball, etc.? If so, then you are already acquainted
with the style of question-and-answer sessions in Public Forum debate. If not, then
you’re in for a real treat. Essentially, the television shows have hosts that invite
guests to the program. They discuss an issue of controversy that has been in the
news recently. Typically, there are people who represent different positions or
politically philosophies so the discussion is full of clash and excitement. While one
person asks a question, others are attempting to get their points across. The
“Cross Fire” portions of a Public Debate are very similar to these television
programs, and they can be equally as exciting.
“Crossfire” might sound like a situation you’d want
to dodge at all costs. Despite its name, crossfire is one
of the most exciting elements of Public Forum Debate. It
allows you to have direct interaction and clash with your
opponents. It allows you to practice a more
improvisational and free-form public speaking style. It is
great training to help you learn how to think quickly on
your feet since it forces you to respond to all sorts of
surprising questions swiftly. It is a slightly more casual
part of the debate round that can allow even your sense of humor to shine through.
It can also become more heated than the rest of the debate since it does allow for
direct interaction between the debaters. For all of these reasons, the crossfire is
often a layperson’s favorite part of a debate. Your principal, teachers, schoolmates,
parents and even local media will be interested in becoming a part of a debate
audience largely because of the crossfire portions of the debates. Mastering your
own crossfire style will increase your credibility as a debater and will improve your
competitive record in Public Forum Debate.
What are the Crossfires?

Let’s talk about the basic structure of the crossfire and its placement within
each round. There are three crossfire periods during every debate. The last
crossfire of the three is called the “grand crossfire.” Each crossfire lasts for three
minutes. The first crossfire happens right after both sides have given their first
speech. The second crossfire happens right after both sides have given their second
speech. Finally, the grand crossfire happens at the very end of the debate after
both sides have given their summary speeches. The topics addressed during the
crossfire usually correspond to the topics that have just been discussed in the most
recent two speeches.
The format for the crossfire is very similar to the format for popular debate
television shows like Crossfire and Capital Gang. When the crossfire period begins,
the first question must be asked by an opponent of the speaker who just finished
giving his or her speech. After that person answers the first question, either
debater may pose a new question for the remainder of the crossfire.

Your initial reaction to this format may be to worry that the crossfire period
will be very confusing: filled with interruptions and false starts. These worries are
not entirely without merit. It will take some practice to completely eliminate
confusion. However, with a little bit of experience, you will become very capable at
reading the subtle signals of your opponent. Practiced and skillful debaters are able
to make the crossfire run smoothly by asking questions at strategic points of pause
and by giving opponents a chance to ask questions as well.
Another element of Public Forum Debate that ensures a certain degree of
order to the crossfire is the ballot. For each round, the judge is given a ballot. The
ballot not only allows the judge to indicate which team has won the debate, but it
also gives the judge the opportunity to give feedback to the debaters in a number
of different categories. One of those categories is how the debaters perform during
the crossfire. Regarding crossfire performance, the ballot asks the judge these
three questions: “Were questions relevant and brief?” and “Were answers on
point?” and finally, “Was the crossfire conducted in a civil manner?” The judge is
required to rate the debaters on their crossfire abilities by mentally answering these
three questions.
These questions should therefore be in the back of your mind at all times,
acting as guiding principals for your performance during crossfire. Since you know
exactly what the judge is looking for (based on these three questions) you know
exactly what you want to try to do. These questions should also temper your nerves
about crossfire spiraling out of control. The questions serve as a check on confusion
and disruption. The judge will reward civil behavior, plus questions and answers
that are brief and on point. Therefore, if debaters do test the water, they will soon
learn that interruption, monopolization of the crossfire or any other rudeness will
only hurt their chances at competitive success.
If, however, the crossfire does end up getting exceptionally out of control,
the judge is permitted to stop the crossfire at any point to let the debaters know
that a line has been crossed. This will only happen on very rare occasions and, odds
are, you will never even experience it. However, if a judge does ever stop crossfire
because of your actions, the best you can do is to briefly apologize and resume the
crossfire in an improved, polite manner. Try to avoid becoming flustered. Having
the crossfire halted does not mean that you and your partner will automatically lose
the round.
There are three different Cross Fire periods in a Public Forum debate – two
“regular” Cross Fires and one “Grand” Cross Fire. The first Cross Fire exists
immediately after the first two speakers have spoken, and the Cross Fire exchange
occurs between them. The second Cross Fire comes immediately after the second
speakers have spoken, and the Cross Fire exchange occurs between the second
speakers. In each of the first “regular” Cross Fires, the first speaker (the first
speaker of the first team, and the first speaker of the second speakers – i.e., the
second speaker of the first team) begins with a question to their opponent, after
both have approached the podium. After that, either speaker can ask a question of
the other. Both “regular” Cross Fires are three minutes in length.
So, for example:

First team: Speaker A, Speaker B Second team: Speaker C,

Speaker D
Speaker A gives their four minute speech on why we should immediately

withdraw from the Iraq war.
Speaker C gives their four minute speech answering Speaker A and

defending the current war in Iraq.
Then, the Cross Fire: Speaker A begins with a question to Speaker C: “So
after four years of conflict with no signs of improvement, you’ll defend that
we should still maintain our troop presence in Iraq?”
Speaker C then answers, “Yes, these sorts of conflicts require time to show
signs of progress, besides, don’t you agree that the amount of terrorism
toward the United States has significantly decreased since our military
engagement in Iraq?”
And so on. Notice how Speaker C can redirect the question since in the Cross Fire,
there are no rules as to who gets to ask or answer questions.
Tips for the First Cross Fire

The first crossfire should be used foremost for clarification. If there are any
terms your opponent has used or any arguments he or she has made that confused
you in any way, you should ask for clarification during the first crossfire period. If
you think you may have missed a point made by the other side you should double
check that with your opponent during this time. It is very important that you are
crystal clear on what exactly your opponent’s position is for the debate. If you find
out what your opponent’s position is during his or her summary speech or even his
or her second speech it is probably already too late for you to answer it adequately.
Make sure you know what you are up against from the get-go. Don’t feel
embarrassed to ask a few
questions of clarification.
Chances are, if you were
confused by something
your opponent said, the
judge was probably a little
confused to. Don’t assume
that it is your fault for not
understanding a particular
argument. It could be,
your opponent failed to
explain his or her
argument very clearly.
Furthermore, it is better
to ask for clarification that
to guess about what your
opponent meant and then

get up in your next speech and answer an irrelevant argument.

In an ideal world, however, you would not fill up the entire first crossfire with
clarifying questions. Even in the first crossfire, you want to get in at least a couple
of questions that expose flaws in your opponent’s arguments. Even better would be
to ask questions that force the other team into making crucial concessions that you
can use against them during your next speech. However, don’t get so distracted by
trying to make your opponent look bad that you fail to clarify what exactly his or
her argument is. This will, in the end, only make you look bad. Try to find a good
balance.
Be sure to give the other team ample opportunity to ask you questions as
well. If you do not allow the other team to ask you questions the judge may
perceive that you are less than confident in your ability to field questions about
your arguments. Furthermore, the judge will probably consider it rude and will
therefore give you a poor rating when he or she answers the question, “Was the
crossfire conducted in a civil manner?” on the ballot.
Tips for the Second Cross Fire

The second crossfire should be a more detailed attack of your opponent’s
arguments than the first crossfire. Since the speeches get progressively shorter as
the debate goes on, the focus of the debate will narrow. Each team will attempt to
pick the strongest arguments it has to advance until the very end of the round. You
are going to want to narrow the focus of the crossfire in accordance with the focus
of the speeches. Avoid addressing arguments made by the other team in the first
speech that have been dropped in the second speech. Try to emphasize any logical
flaws or major contradictions you can find in your opponent’s arguments.
The Grand Cross Fire

The “Grand” Cross Fire is slightly different than the “regular” Cross Fires. During
the Grand Cross Fire, any speaker from any team may ask questions to any of
either one of their opponents. The first summary speaker is the one who begins.
One other difference is that all four speakers may engage in the Grand Cross Fire
while sitting down. While rare, some areas of the country allow brief questions
from judges or audience members during this time.
So, by using the same example:

First team: Speaker A, Speaker B
Second team: Speaker C, Speaker D
 Speaker A (first summary speaker) begins by asking Speaker D: “Why do

you insist on using terrorism as a reason to maintain the war, when there
was no initial connection between 9/11 and Iraq?”
 Speaker D responds: “Whether Iraq was initially involved with 9/11 is
irrelevant. We now know that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists, so the
war is imperative to reduce their strength” (to Speaker A), Speaker D asks:
“Would you deny that, Speaker A?”
 Speaker A answers: “Of course. There is quite a bit of evidence to support
that terrorism in Iraq only increased after the U.S. invaded. So (to Speaker

C), how to defend that U.S. military engagement in Iraq may have actually
increased terrorism?”
 Speaker C responds: “Just because we see more terrorists fighting in Iraq
now than before doesn’t mean they didn’t exist in the first place.”
In this way, each debater may participate in the Grand Cross Fire, and they may
ask either one of their opponents.
You may be worried again that the grand crossfire has real potential to
become hectic; however, many of the reasons why the first two crossfire periods
will remain under control apply here. You and your partner will learn to build
teamwork skills during the grand crossfire period perhaps more than any other
portion of the debate. You may want to set up some guidelines before the
tournament with your partner. Some teams might find it helpful to alternate asking
and answering questions. If you do draw a blank and are unable to think of another
question, go ahead and confidently say to your partner, “[Insert your partner’s
name here] do you have any questions at this point?” This can be your secret code
for times when what you are really thinking is, “Aaah, help me out here, I have no
clue what to ask!” Take advantage of the benefits of the grand crossfire: you are
able to rely on your partner for help if you need it. If you happen to get stuck when
the other team asks you a question, don’t be afraid to confidently say something
like, “I am going to let my partner take this question because s/he is actually much
more studied in that area than I am.”
What to do during a Cross Fire

Everyone must participate during at least one of the regular Cross Fires, and
chances are, everyone will participate in the Grand Cross Fire. While many
debaters are nervous about the Cross Fires, they should view them as a fun way to
exchange arguments with their opponents. Other than just giving a speech, the
Cross Fires allow debaters to become lively and directly engage each other. Here
are some simple steps to help you when participating in Cross Fires.
Step One: Be Excited

You should remember that the Cross Fire is your opportunity to directly engage
your opponent. This means you will have the opportunity to address issues and
arguments that you cannot address when they are giving their speech. If Cross
Fires didn’t exist, debaters would get very frustrated at not being able to ask
clarifying questions or not being able to expose weaknesses through questioning.
So get excited about this opportunity!
Step Two: Have A Plan Going Into The Cross Fire

Many debaters feel nervous when they stand up for a Cross Fire. The reason? Nine
times out of ten it is because the debater doesn’t know what to say. If they think
about what their opponents may say in advance, or if they do drills with their
teammates on their case in advance, the debater would have more of an idea of
what to say during a Cross Fire. If pre-tournament preparation is not possible, a
debater should be focused as soon as the debate round begins. They should think
of weaknesses in an opponent’s case, or think of things that need clarification.

Then, when the Cross Fire begins, they have something to ask. Typically, once one
or two questions are asked, they will spur additional questions.
Step Three: Use Your Time Wisely

Three minutes is not very much time, especially if your opponent can also ask
questions. So, when you ask questions, be brief. Make sure you allocate enough
time for what you need to ask. Always remember that when you are budgeting
your time for a Cross Fire, that your opponent will use up some of that three
minutes as well.
Step Four: Be Clear

Not only does being clear help you save time (see Step Three above), but it also
will make your position easier to understand for the judge, opponents and
audience. In the end, many debates are often won simply by being the most
intelligible and clear.
Step Five: Be Level-Headed

Cross Fires can be excited and nerve-wracking. Sometimes your opponent will
misunderstand your position or answer. Sometimes they will intentionally try to
distort what you said to prove their point. Sometimes they will claim you said
something that you, in fact, didn’t really say. In these instances, it is imperative
that you remain calm and level-headed. If you respond with hostility or
aggravation, you will only demonstrate that you have something to be defensive
about. Remember to be polite and calm. In so doing, you will show poise and
professionalism. Answering their claims from a level-headed perspective will make
you look much stronger, and your opponents much weaker as a result of their
claims or questions.
Step Six: Ask Questions To Weaken Opponent’s Case

The Cross Fire should be used to help you win the debate. Since it looks bad for
you to make arguments about your own case (if you are the questioner) during a
Cross Fire, you will want to focus on weakening your opponent’s case. These
questions typically begin by asking a question of clarification. Once you receive the
answer, you can follow-up with a question that damages the opponent’s case.
Here’s an example:
 Speaker C to Speaker A: Can you explain how, exactly, the U.S.

should pull-out of Iraq?
 Speaker A: The U.S. could begin withdrawal immediately; there’s
nothing preventing that.
 Speaker C: So you’ll advocate an immediate withdrawal?
 Speaker A: Yes.
 Speaker C: It is obvious that currently the Iraqi regime is not strong
enough to defend itself, so what do you think an immediate
withdrawal would do to the current, democratically-elected
government in Iraq?

And, this, of course, sets up the opposing team’s argument that withdrawal will
hurt the Iraqis
Step Seven: Prep If You’re Not Participating

One of the common misconceptions about Cross Fires is that if one is not
participating, then one doesn’t have to do anything at all. This is patently false. If
you are not engaged in a Cross Fire (let’s say you’re the second speaker of your
team, so you won’t be involved with the first Cross Fire), then you should be using
those three minutes as prep time for you to work on your arguments. At this point,
you will know what your opponent’s main position is, so there is no reason for you
to not begin preparing your position as well.
What NOT to do during a Cross Fire

While debaters have an idea of what should occur
during a Cross Fire, they sometimes engage in behavior
that does not help their position. Just like a young trial
lawyer – who gets overly-excited – may risk
jeopardizing his/her case because he/she over-does
what he/she are supposed to do, so too can a debater
get carried away with their time during the Cross Fire.
So, here are a few tips to avoid in order to maximize
your presence during a Cross Fire.
Tip One: Don’t Be Monotone

Often, debaters are nervous or shy during a Cross Fire. This is not the time to be
either. You should be actively engaged during a Cross Fire, just like you are when
you’re in a heated discussion at the dinner table. Remember that a Cross Fire helps
you with your arguments and overall position just as much as an actual speech.
Tip Two: Don’t Raise Your Voice

While we don’t want you to be monotone, we also don’t want you to yell at us,
either. Occasionally debaters will raise their voices, not because they are upset,
but because they are simply too excited. Try to remain calm, poised, and collected
during a Cross Fire. Ultimately, your ability to remain calm will make you look
more prepared, polished, and confident.
Tip Three: Don’t Be Rude

Sometimes debaters can raise their voice or say harsh things because they are
being rude. Avoid this at all costs! Judges almost unanimously frown upon rude
behavior. As mentioned in Step Two, you should try to remain calm, poised, and
collected.
Tip Four: Don’t Take All Of The Time For Yourself

Taking all of the time – without allowing your opponent to ask some questions –
makes you appear dominating and overbearing. Some judges will also categorize
this as being rude. In order to look polished and confident, don’t use all the time
for yourself. Giving your opponent some time will make you look prepared and
unafraid.

Tip Five: Don’t Interrupt

Let your opponent answer the question you asked him/her. Not doing so risks
making you look rude. Of course, if they take so long to answer your question that
it looks like they’re just wasting time, then you may politely and gently ask them to
finish or to stop. But always try to remain calm and polite.
Tip Six: Don’t Make Additional Arguments For Your Case

It looks awkward if you make arguments for your case if you are the questioner
during a Cross Fire. After all, that is what your speeches are for. Cross Fires are
intended for you to ask your opponents about their cases. So, instead of making
arguments about your case, use the Cross Fire time to weaken your opponent’s
case.
Tips for the Questioner

While we have covered some general “do’s” and “don’ts” of Cross Fire behavior, it is
important to realize that there are specific strategic and stylistic components of
both the questioner and the answerer. Therefore, in order for you to become the
best debater you can be during a Cross Fire, you should remember and practice the
following steps for questioners.
Tip One: Ask “Yes” or “No” Questions

This is very important. Since three minutes isn’t very much time, you will want to
maximize your time as much as possible. One way to do this is to limit the time
your opponent will take in answering your question. Perhaps more importantly,
however, you also want to limit your opponent’s ability to “qualify” their answers.
In other words, you want them to directly answer your question, not maneuver or
dodge around it. Forcing them to answer “yes” or “no” helps to prevent this.
Tip Two: Be Direct

You’ll want to be as direct as possible with your questions. This not only helps your
opponent to answer them directly, but it also allows you to be explicit and clear for
your judge and audience.
Tip Three: Don’t Let Your Opponent Use All Of The Time
Again, three minutes isn’t much time, so you need to manage your time wisely.
Also, you need to remember that your opponent gets to ask questions too. So, in
order to save time, don’t let your opponent go on-and-on with their answer to your
question. Be mindful to not be rude, but gently and politely ask them to wrap up
their answer quickly or to stop in the interest of time.
Tip Four: Try To Gain Concessions

One way to simultaneously weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen your own
is to get them to admit to something (or to concede to something). For example:
 Speaker B to Speaker D: You will agree that pulling out of Iraq now would
be harmful to the U.S., correct?
 Speaker D: Absolutely.

 Speaker B: Is that because the U.S. has invested so much into this war
effort?
 Speaker D: That is one of the reasons.
Here, Speaker B has gained a concession. Speaker D has revealed that the U.S.
has devoted so much to the Iraq war, it has a vested interested in staying there.
Speaker B can use that to argue that the U.S. has fronted most of the personnel
and resources in the Iraq war, meaning that the rest of the world has not supported
it to the extent that the Bush Administration had initially desired.
Tip Five: Ask A Variety Of Questions

If possible and if time allows, you should try to ask a variety of questions. Not only
will this liven-up the Cross Fire, but it will also prevent your opponents from
ascertaining what your most important arguments are. In other words, different
types of questions keep them guessing.
Tip Six: Clarify Opponent’s Position

There are times when your opponent’s arguments are difficult to understand, or
perhaps you were unable to write them all down. You may use the Cross Fire time
to ask your opponent to clarify. Once they’ve clarified, you should follow-up with
another question that weakens their position. For example:
 Speaker A to Speaker C: You mentioned that the U.S. has a lot vested in the
Iraq war, which is why we shouldn’t pull out. Can you clarify?
 Speaker C: We’ve made commitments, have tens of thousands of troops
there now, and a lot of money has been invested into the war.
 Speaker A: Thank you for clarifying. So you’ll agree that the war has cost
lots of money?
Notice that after clarifying, Speaker C admitted (probably unintentionally) that the
war was expensive. Speaker A then follows-up on that point, which he/she or their
teammate can use in one of their next speeches.
Tips for the Answer

Just like with questioners, answerers also have specific strategic and stylistic
components. You should be mindful of these specific tips for answerers so that you
can be the best debater you can be during a Cross Fire.
Tip One: Don’t Get Flustered

It is not uncommon for a debater to get nervous during a Cross Fire, particularly
when he/she is being asked questions that they don’t know in advance. The most
important thing to remember here is to not get flustered. That sometimes is easier
said, than done. However, the debater should remain focused. They should rely on
the strengths of their arguments that they just presented. The debater may not
have the answers to every question, but the goal is to present his/her case as
strongly as possible. Plus, don’t forget, you can ask you opponent’s questions too!
Tip Two: Think Before You Answer

Many times the questioner will be asking questions to trip a debater up, to get them
to concede to a particular argument. When this happens, the questions are rarely
direct. Instead, they are usually disguised so that the answerer will fall into the
trap. As the answerer, you should listen to each question carefully and take time to
think before you answer. In this way, you can ensure that you don’t inadvertently
provide a concession.
Tip Three: Don’t Be Afraid To Ask For Clarification To The Question

As you are carefully listening to the question, you may find yourself unclear as to
what the questioner is exactly asking. Feel free to ask them to repeat the question,
or to rephrase it. This will not make you look unintelligent – quite the opposite.
Determining what the question is before you answer is crucial for you to provide an
intelligent and solid answer.
Tip Four: Avoid Giving Concessions

Avoiding giving a concession is mainly done by thinking before you answer and
asking for clarification to a question when necessary. However, there may be times
when a question is asked that you cannot dodge. Perhaps your case does have a
problem to it, and trying to dodge a question that points out the flaw will only make
things worse. In this instance, you may try answering their question with a
question of your own (see Tip Six below), or simply give your opponents the answer
they want. However, if you have to give a concession, try to qualify your answer
(Tip Five) and/or be sure to discuss in your next speech that even if your case has
a flaw, it is still better than your opponent’s case.
Tip Five: Try To Qualify Answers

Qualifying an answer is very important skill. You rarely want to provide simple
“yes” or “no” answers to questions, even if the questions are relatively
straightforward. Why? Because providing a “yes” or “no” answer locks you into an
absolute – either you do, or you don’t – with no wiggle-room. The key to
answering tough questions is to give yourself wiggle-room. This is important for a
couple of reasons. First, you don’t want to give a concession to your opponent if
you can avoid it. Second, qualifying an answer now allows you to think of a better
answer for the question later – or it at least allows you to clarify it more later in a
speech. Third, and perhaps most importantly, giving yourself wiggle-room allows
you to dismiss potential flaws in your case while emphasizing its strengths. For
example:
 Speaker D to Speaker A: Won’t pulling out of Iraq demonstrate to the world

that the U.S. is weak and vulnerable? Please answer with a Yes or No.
 Speaker A: Perhaps it will demonstrate that to some people around the
world, but it is difficult to say with certainty who would see the U.S. that
way and who wouldn’t , at this point.
Notice how Speaker A doesn’t answer with a “yes” or “no,” despite Speaker D’s
request. Instead, Speaker A admits that some countries may view the U.S. as
weak (so, a partial concession), but then provides him/herself some wiggle-room
by saying that it is a) difficult to know with certainty, and b) especially at this

point in time. This gives Speaker A (and his/her team) the ability to clarify and use
the strengths of their case later on.
Tip Six: Answer A Question With A Question

This tip is similar to qualifying one’s answers, except it doesn’t provide you with the
wiggle-room, necessarily, for later speeches as does qualifying. Instead, answering
a question with a question is a deflection technique. It puts your opponent on
guard instead of you. Here’s an example:
 Speaker D to Speaker A: Won’t pulling out of Iraq demonstrate to the world

that the U.S. is weak and vulnerable? Please answer with a Yes or No.
 Speaker A: I’m not sure what you’re getting at, do you have a better option
to protect America’s image since its image is already low now with the
war?
This allows Speaker A to get out of the trap, but it doesn’t provide the same benefit
as does qualifying. Nevertheless, it is often easier to think of a way to answer a
question with a question than it is to qualify one’s answer, and, in the case above,
it does allow Speaker A to weaken their opponent’s case by pointing out that
America’s image is weak now with the war. So this is a strong strategy to keep in
mind. Be careful, however, and try avoiding using this strategy too much in a
single debate. Judges and audiences are not dumb, and they will quickly figure out
that you are attempting to not answer questions if this is the only thing you do.
Key Things to remember about Cross Fires

Overall, here are some key things to remember about engaging in a Cross Fire.
Remember that Cross Fire is the time for you to expose the weakness of your
opponent’s case and for you to demonstrate your reasoning skills. These tips are
the most important things to utilize, regardless of what you can remember
specifically for questioners and answerers.
Tip One: Don’t Be Rude

This is very important. Being rude will not help your case. Remember to be calm
and collected to present a professional, polished image. Even if your opponent is
being rude, do not be rude back to them. Your judge and audience will notice that
your opponent is being rude, and your opponent’s behavior will damage their case
and presentation.
Tip Two: Face The Judge And Audience

You should always keep in mind that Public Forum debate is a persuasive event.
You are ultimately trying to persuade your judge and audience, not your opponent.
As a result, do not look down or at your opponent during a Cross Fire. Instead,
look out to your judge and audience so that you can maximize your persuasive
effect.
Tip Three: Speak Up

Again, debaters should be mindful that they are trying to communicate to judges
and audience members. The debaters should be less concerned with their

teammates and opponents, although they should be able to hear quite nicely since
they are close to the speaker. Judges and audience members are often not very
close. Additionally, many rooms where debates occur have poor acoustics.
Therefore, every debater should make sure they are loud enough for everyone to
hear (but not so loud that they are perceived as yelling).
Tip Four: Have Enthusiasm

Enthusiasm, enthusiasm, enthusiasm. This is the key ingredient to any persuasive
speaker, and Public Forum is no different. Judges and audience members are less
likely to believe a debater who is just “going through the motions” during a Cross
Fire than they are someone who has enthusiasm. Debaters should act like they
have passion for their position, which will get translated into the feelings of judges
and audience members.
Tip Five: Don’t Waste Time

Cross Fires only have three minutes. That isn’t much time to develop significant
questions, especially if your opponents also get to ask questions during the same
three minutes. So, the last thing you want to do is waste time by asking your
opponent to repeat obvious arguments they made or to clarify simple claims.
Instead, be sure to use your Cross Fire time wisely to your advantage. Develop
important and probing questions that can weaken your opponent’s case.
Tip Six: Be Flexible

While preparing for anticipated Cross Fire questions and answers is important
before traveling to a tournament, a debater should not be too dependent on pre-
arranged questions and answers. In other words, debaters should have a solid
foundation of knowledge about their case and about the topic in general, but their
answers and questions during Cross Fire should be very specific and flexible to the
unique debate round at hand.
Tip Seven: Be Confident

Just like being enthusiastic, you should also be confident. Remind yourself that you
know your position backwards and forwards. Rely on the practices you’ve had with
your teammates and coaches before the tournament. Be mindful that your
opponent is in the same situation as you. Also, you should focus on your case and
positions. Avoid letting your mind wander about what will be available for lunch, or
how your favorite sports team is doing, and so on. Staying focused and remaining
confident in your abilities will translate into a solid Cross Fire performance.
Tip Eight: Use Emotions

Don’t be too serious and expressionless during a Cross Fire. Instead, use emotions
and non-verbals, such as smiling, rolling of the eyes, raising of your eyebrows,
hand gestures, etc. The more dynamic and animated you can be during a Cross
Fire, the more your judges and audience members will remember you and your
positions.
In the end, always remember that you are trying to persuade a judge and an
audience. Think about how you look in front of them. Sometimes what is going on

in their minds is not the same thing that is going on in yours. If they don’t agree,
you need to change your behavior and/or performance in a Cross Fire because it is
your job to persuade them.
Additional Tips for Crossfire

Many debaters will be tempted to sneak arguments into the crossfire time. If
this is done without tact, judges will see right through it and will give you a lower
ranking for your crossfire performance. However, if you can use a question to make
or imply an argument judges will be very impressed.
Although these are good tips for emergency situations, you do want to try to
avoid using these argumentative phrases with great frequency. You and your
partner should work to find a good cooperative balance. Public Forum Debate is a
team debate activity and the judge will be evaluating you, to a large degree, on
your ability to work as part of a team. If one partner dominates a team by
monopolizing the crossfire time, this will hurt both of your credibility. It will give the
impression to the audience that the
dominating partner is not confident in
his or her partner’s ability. If one
partner is constantly handing off
questions to his or her partner, it will
give the impression that the passive
partner is not confident in his or her
own arguments. So, while it is fine to
rely on your partner every now and
then, you don’t want to make it so
pronounced that your credibility is
hurt. Furthermore, the more you
practice fielding questions on your own
in the beginning, the faster you will improve. With improvement, your confidence
will grow. So, put yourself out there and really try to give it your best early on in
your debate career.
Don’t Interrupt your Partner

On the other hand, under no circumstances should you ever interrupt your
partner. Even if you think your partner is making an argument that hurts your
team, avoid interruption. Furthermore, you should never roll your eyes or make any
facial expressions that indicate you disagree with what your partner is saying. You
and your partner must work to appear to be a united front, even if on the inside
you disagree with one another. Discussing disagreements over strategic decisions
with your partner can be very productive between tournaments; however the
debate round itself is not a good time to express disagreement. The judge and the
audience will immediately pick up on tension between partners and this will hurt
your credibility. You will not appear to be a team that knows what it is doing.
If your partner has a habit of interrupting you during crossfire, you might try
talking to him or her after the tournament about it. Politely explain the reasons you
think it could hurt your credibility with judges. Also explain that without practice,
you fear you will not have a chance to improve your crossfire abilities. If your
partner is not receptive to your concerns, you may want to ask a coach or teacher

to mediate the conversation. If you have tried to talk to your partner outside of the
debate round about his or her interruptions and he or she still fails to stop, you can
politely say during the crossfire interruption, “I can handle this question,” and then
proceed to answer the question.
Furthermore, you want to avoid ever interrupting either of your opponents as
well. Wait until he or she fully completes a sentence and then proceed. For obvious
reasons, the judge will consider it rude for you to interrupt your opponent, no
matter how ludicrous his or her statement is. If you encounter an overbearing
opponent who interrupts or monopolizes crossfire time, keep your cool. Chances are
this kind of behavior will only hurt your rude opponent’s chances of success with
the judge. Although it may be tempting to raise your voice or interrupt in turn,
resist the temptation by staying calm and collected. This will impress your critic.
You may want to politely use phrases like, “If you would give me a chance, I would
be happy to answer that question for you,” or, “You have asked us some great
questions so far, would you be willing to answer a few for us now?” Try your best
not to sound like a smart-aleck. Just politely, but confidently request a chance to
speak. If your opponent persists, even after you have treated him or her with
respect, you will come-off looking like the more reasonable, confident team.
Keeping the Eye Contact during Crossfire

Many beginning debaters have a tendency to look down, or look at their
opponents during crossfire. Making eye contact with the judge during crossfire is
one quick and easy trick you can use to instantly make yourself appear to be a very
experienced debater. In everyday conversation, if you ask someone a question, you
look at the person to whom your question is addressed. Keep in mind, however,
that a Public Forum Debate is not analogous to an everyday conversation. Although
you will be addressing questions to your opponent, your opponent is not the person
you need to be persuading. In fact, your opponent will never be persuaded of your
argument since their goal is to advocate the opposite position. The judge is the
person who you should focus on for the entire debate. Instead of looking at your
opponent when you ask him or her a question, look directly at the judge. This may
feel a little awkward at first, but will soon become instinctual. Using eye contact will
allow you to immediately exude confidence. It will also force the judge to be more
engaged with your arguments since he or she will probably respond by making eye
contact with you in return.
An added benefit to making eye contact is that you will be able to pick-up on
helpful clues from looking at your judge. Some judges will be more expressive than
others. All judges, however, will use some degree of body language. By observing
your judge during the crossfire, you will often be able to tell if he or she is
disinterested, confused or seems to be agreeing or disagreeing with what you are
saying. This will let you know if you need to move on to another point or if you
need to clarify something further. You may believe you have caught on to
something very clever such as a contradiction in your opponent’s arguments, but if
the judge seems unimpressed or unconvinced, you don’t want to waste your
crossfire time by barking up the wrong tree or beating a dead horse.

Dealing with the Jitters

Although it is exciting, the crossfire can, for some people, be an extremely
nerve racking experience. This is especially true of the crossfire parts of the debate
since there is no script and no list of arguments to answer in order. You are
required to answer whatever questions are thrown at you, and you must come up
with questions to ask your opponent after hearing his or her speech. This requires
quick thinking. Let’s discuss some strategies for dealing with the jitters. Even if you
are not nervous yet, it could be a different story when you are up in front of a
group of people. Imagining the audience in their underwear is more likely to make
you laugh than it is to calm your nerves.
To prevent nervousness from overwhelming your ability to perform during
crossfire, you will want to come up with a few areas of questioning on both sides of
the topic before the tournament even begins. A good time to do this is after you
have written your opening speeches. These questions will need to be fairly broad so
that they are applicable to the general topic area. You will need to be able to mold
these general questions so that they relate to your opponent’s arguments. If you
have at least a few general questions, you will have something to lean on in the
event that you blank during the middle of a crossfire.
Writing down some pre-prepared questions before the tournament will also
help you become better at answering questions during crossfire. For every question
you come up with, ask yourself how you would answer if your opponent asked you
the same question. Be honest with yourself about the weaknesses of your
arguments. It is tempting to avoid thinking about these weaknesses. You can be
sure your opponent will not avoid them though! So, a little pre-tournament thinking
about how to field questions regarding these weaknesses will allow you to know the
answer as soon as the question is asked during the round. If you are worried that
you are bad at improvisational speaking, one way to deal with that is to make it as
un-improvised as possible. This can be done simply through thinking about possible
questions and answers before the tournament.
During your opponent’s speech, jot down notes to help you during crossfire.
If you hear your opponent say something unclear or make two contradictory
statements, write that down and ask him or her about it during the crossfire. If
your opponent says something illogical at the very beginning of his or her speech,
you may forget what exactly was said four minutes later when you are focused on
something else. Write it down so that you have plenty of material for the crossfire.
Do not underestimate the power of taking a deep breath. This can do
wonders for the nerves. If someone asks you a question and you are unsure of how
you should answer, above all, don’t show the judge, audience or your opponent
that you are worried. Remain calm and try to appear confident at all times. Take a
pause. Take time rather than rushing into a series of “um, um, ums” before saying
“I don’t know.” It is better to confidently say “I don’t know,”or “I am not sure,”
than it is to make it appear as though you think it matters that you don’t know the
answer. If you don’t know the answer to a question, try to just explain why the
answer to that question is not very important to the heart of your argument. It can
also help to give your opponent a little bit of credit. Don’t be afraid to say, “you
have asked a very good question,” before answering. By the time you have given
the compliment you will have had a moment to come up with an answer.

Conclusion
Crossfire can be nerve-racking, however, for the same reasons it can also be
exhilarating and therefore rewarding. Be polite, but unyielding. Make your
questions and answers brief, but don’t rush. Work with, not against your partner.
With a little practice you will be able to enjoy the satisfaction of trapping your
opponent with a devastating question, or leaving them speechless with an
intelligent answer. With a little thought and preparation you will be able to avoid
getting caught in the crossfire!


The Summary Speech
Arguments occur everyday. Imagine you and your best friend enter an
argument about which is best: McDonald’s or Wendy’s french fries? When your
friend makes the argument that McDonald’s is best because they are saltier, you
can’t wait to respond with too much salt is not tasty and that Wendy’s fries are
usually better cooked. In other words, when you’re in the argument, you can’t wait
to respond – to have your voice heard and to make your point. In debate
competitions, we call the speech where a debater responds to their opponent’s
position – as well as advancing their own arguments – as a “rebuttal” speech. In
Public Forum debate, this speech has a specific name: The Summary Speech.
WHAT IS THE SUMMARY SPEECH?

Each team is given a speech called “the
Summary Speech,” which is given by the first
speaker of the team. The second speaker of
each team gives an entirely different speech,
called the “Final Focus,” which we discuss in a
different chapter. The Summary Speech is a
very important speech because it serves as a
“hinge” moment in the debate. In other words,
it is the moment in the debate where a team’s
overarching position begins to be focused, and
where the Summary speaker also highlights the
key weaknesses of their opposition’s case.
There are a couple of important things to
remember about the Summary Speech.
First, the Summary Speech has a unique

purpose: Strengthen your own case by extending key arguments from earlier
speeches, continue to weaken your opponent’s case from arguments made in
earlier speeches, and answer the arguments made by your opponents in their
previous speech.
Second, Rebuild Your Arguments: Many debaters remember that they need to
reinforce their case and continue to weaken their opponent’s case. However, it is
very important to also answer the arguments made by your opponent’s previous
speech. Failing to answer their arguments means their arguments stand. What’s
more, not contesting opposing arguments is essentially the opposite of debate.
Debate requires clash, and you should answer claims made against your case. For
example:
 Let’s assume the topic is Gun Control. Team A opposes Gun Control, and
Team B advocates more Gun Control laws.

 Team A argues that Gun Control violates the constitution, allows deadly
school shootings like Virginia Tech, and puts too much power to the Federal
Government.
 Team B argues that Gun Control causes accidental shootings, allows gang
violence, and encourages more shootings (not less) because if people have
guns, they’ll use them.
 During the Summary Speech, Team A extends their three key arguments and
contests Team B’s positions that guns cause accidental shootings and
more shootings. However, they forget to address Team B’s point that Gun
Control can reduce gang violence by limiting the guns that gangs can use.
In this example, the Summary Speech by Team A may be a well-delivered speech,

but it fails to answer all of Team B’s claims. A better Summary Speech would
strengthen their case, weaken their opponent’s case, and answer all of the key
claims made by Team B in their earlier speech.
Third, the Summary Speech allows a debater to extend arguments by

introducing new evidence or applying new analysis. However, they may not
introduce a new argument. Summary Speeches being the narrowing-down process
of the debate, where both teams have to highlight their key arguments for their
overarching case or position.
KEY ELEMENTS OF A GOOD SUMMARY SPEECH

In public forum debate, the summary speeches are a critical turning point in
the round. Only two minutes in length, your summary speech is a crucial bridge
between your team’s first two speeches and your final focus. Since you will have
heard your partner refute the other team’s case in his/her speech and because two
crossfires will have taken place before your summary, you should have a good idea
of which arguments you are ahead on and which you might be losing. In the
summary speech, you should begin to focus the debate on the key issues necessary
for you to win. Follow these steps to make your summary speech spectacular!
1. Briefly Sum up the Debate

Your summary should begin with a very brief overview of how you see the debate
playing out. Remember not to cover every little disagreement – this is a summary,
not a line-by-line refutation. In your beginning overview, present the fundamental
thesis of your case and give brief reasoning why you believe you will win the
debate. For example, begin your summary by saying, “The pro side has
convincingly argued that providing universal health insurance to all Americans will
drastically reduce deaths from illness that are preventable with simple medical care.
The con side will not be able to show disadvantages to this resolution that outweigh
its benefits, and we will therefore win the debate.” Remember to keep your
overview short and simple, hit on the key reasons to vote for your team, and show
why the other side’s arguments aren’t enough to win them the debate.

2. Answer Key Arguments

Because the final focus must concentrate on the reasons to vote for your side and
often does not allow time to answer the other side’s arguments, the summary
speech is your last chance to refute your opponents’ arguments. You will be
pressed for time in your summary speech, so you should not try to answer every
point your opponents raised in their second speech. Instead, focus on the one or
two of your opponents’ arguments you think are the strongest, and answer them.
Don’t worry about going “line-by-line,” just refute the central ideas behind your
opponent’s arguments.
Remember not to spend time summing up the other team’s arguments before you
answer them. Don’t say, “In their second speech our opponents argued that
universal health insurance would cause a massive increase in claims which would
impair doctors’ ability to treat patients quickly and effectively – our first response
is…” By referencing your opponents’ argument in such detail you do them a favor
by reminding the judge of the argument and wasting your own speech time.
Instead, restate your argument first and then show how it answers your opponent’s
argument – without spending too much time summing up the other side’s
argument. Instead of the example above, try saying, “Empirical studies from
Canada’s health care system demonstrate that universal health insurance raises the
quality and efficiency of health care. This PROVES that their arguments about
health care quality are false.” Only restate the bare minimum of their argument to
let the judge know what you’re responding to. And remember to restate your
argument first – doing so sounds powerful and gives your argument credibility.
3. Develop Old Arguments

If the other team has a particularly good response to your case in their second
speech, you may need to rebuild your original arguments a bit in your summary
speech. Remember not to spend too much time rebuilding old arguments – do just
enough work to repair the damage your opponents have done to your case. Also,
you should only focus on rebuilding arguments central to your case, or arguments
that you could lose the debate on. This will prevent you from spending unneeded
time on issues that aren’t of central importance to the debate. When rebuilding an
argument, consider bringing up a new piece of evidence, quotation, or statistic that
supports your original claim and responds to your opponent’s objection. Considering
the example about universal health insurance above, you might rebuild your case
by citing a new study or poll that responds to the con side’s argument about health
care quality. This is not a new argument because it rebuilds your original argument
(that universal health insurance will benefit America’s health care system), and
because it responds to your opponent’s argument. Because the debate will likely
come down to whether or not the judge believes universal health insurance to be
beneficial, this is a good part of the debate to rebuild by citing additional evidence
in the summary speech. Be careful not to spend too much summary time
rebuilding, though – the point of the summary speech is to begin crystallizing the
round for the judge and to emphasize the key issues your side is winning.

4. Watch out for New Arguments

Your summary speech is not a time to bring up new arguments. Besides being
disallowed by the rules, new arguments in summary speeches put you at a
disadvantage. Your summary is already pressed for time – answering the other
side’s arguments, rebuilding your own, and providing an overview of the round and
its important issues are all important jobs for the summary speaker. Bringing up
new arguments will merely waste your time, and will not give you a strategic
benefit because it is unlikely that your partner’s final focus will be able to elaborate
on your new arguments and use them to your team’s advantage. It is best to stick
to extending, clarifying, and improving on arguments already in the debate in your
summary speech.
So, how do you tell if an argument is new? Easy. New evidence, reasoning,
facts, statistics, opinions, and support of all kinds are welcome in the summary
speech so long as they are linked to arguments already in the debate. Before
making an argument, ask yourself, “Does this support a point made in our case or
in my partner’s second speech?” If so, go ahead and make the argument. If not, it’s
probably new. For example, if your case supports ending the death penalty and
your first speech argued that the death penalty is ineffective at deterring crime,
arguing in the summary speech that the death penalty is racist would be a new
argument. On the other hand, arguing that the death penalty has been proven not
to reduce the murder rate in states that support it would not constitute a new
argument. In this case, your argument directly supports your original claim that the
death penalty is an ineffective deterrent – it merely uses a new piece of evidence to
support this original claim. Sometimes the distinction between a new argument and
merely new evidence is blurry and hard to define – in these cases, err on the side
of caution and only make arguments that you feel directly tie to your original case.
5. Weigh the Other Side’s Arguments with “Even If”

Statements
Once you’ve provided an overview of the debate, developed your side’s strongest
arguments, and answered new arguments from the other side’s second speech, the
final task of the summary speaker is to sum up the debate. Before you give the
judge a final picture of the debate, however, it is important to take care of the
arguments you could potentially lose the debate on. If you want to make sure that
you win a public forum debate, you must show the judge that even if the other side
wins all of their arguments, the judge should still vote for you. You can do this in
your summary speech by making “even if” statements. In other words, show that
even if your opponent’s arguments are found to be true, they are not strong
enough to overcome your case. Show how your case is so strong that it overcomes
whatever flaws the other team can isolate. Here is one example of such an “even if”
statement: “Even if the con side wins that some people’s insurance claims will not
be adequately responded to, we have shown that on balance a universal health
insurance system would vastly improve on the status quo’s health care system.
Even if the resolution is not a perfect solution, we have shown that it offers
substantial improvement over the status quo.” Even-if statements are a great way
to show the judge your understanding of the debate as a whole. They demonstrate
that you know you can’t win every argument on the flow, but at the same time you

know which arguments are the important ones to win and you are confident that
you will win them. Even-if statements put the other team in a tough position – they
force the other side not only to win their arguments, but also to prove why those
arguments matter enough to warrant a ballot. Remember not to overuse even-if
statements, though – only use them on arguments you think you could lose the
debate on.
6. Sum Up the Round

The final thing you should do in your summary speech is exactly what the name
implies: provide a concise and powerful summary of the debate’s key issues and
why you believe your team should win. The conclusion of your summary speech
should make the other side’s final focus as difficult as possible – prove why a vote
for your side is the only way to solve the problems you’ve identified and why your
side should be endorsed despite whatever consequences the opposition might
counter with. Your conclusion should be rhetorically powerful – focus on the most
convincing points in support of your stance and show the judge why consideration
of your arguments should come before all else. Think of your conclusion as writing
what you would want to see on the judge’s ballot as a reason for decision. Also,
don’t just restate the overview of the debate you gave at the beginning of your
summary speech. Your conclusion should show the judge the implications of voting
for your side – what would the world look like if the resolution were to come into
effect, and why is this a good or bad thing? Why is the resolution something the
judge should support or negate? Your conclusion should provide clear and
convincing answers to these questions.
TIPS FOR A GOOD SUMMARY SPEECH

Now that you have a general idea of what a Summary Speech should entail, we
should discuss some key tips to keep in mind when you’re preparing and presenting
your Summary Speech.
Tip One: Know your Case

One of the purposes of the Summary Speech is to extend one’s case, or
overarching position. In order to do this, the Summary speaker must know their
case very well. The debater should work closely with their partner to fully
understand all of their key arguments.
However, knowing one’s case is more than just being able to describe the
main points of the case. It also involves an intimate knowledge of the case’s
strengths as well as weaknesses. A good Summary Speech debater will know how
to use their case to his/her advantage, especially when answering claims from the
opposing side. Further, the Summary speaker should be fully aware of the case’s
weaknesses. This will allow the debater to better address the arguments made by
the other team, and it will allow the debater to more effectively position the
strengths of the case to compensate for any potential problems.
Tip Two: Anticipate your Opponent’s Arguments

By the time the Summary Speech occurs, the Summary speaker knows what
foundational arguments his/her opponents have made from their earlier speeches.

However, if you are the first Summary Speaker, then your opponent still has yet to
give their Summary Speech. Plus, both Final Focus speeches follow the Summary
Speeches. Thus, a good Summary speaker must anticipate what his/her opponent
will say after his/her Summary speaker.
In order for this to make sense, let’s recall the purpose of the Summary
Speech – if you are the first Summary speaker, you should expect that your
opponent’s Summary speech will extend their original case, try to weaken your
case, and refute your arguments. They will begin to narrow the debate by
highlighting the key arguments and points in the overall debate. Your job – in the
Summary Speech – is to anticipate how your opponent will narrow and focus the
debate.
Plus, it is just a good idea to anticipate what your opponent will say. An
estimated guess about what your opponent will say will allow you to frame the
debate first, as well as pre-empt (or answer before another side can make an
argument) your opponent’s arguments.
Tip Three: Be Offensive

This tip suggests that you have as much offense as possible. Don’t just be
defensive. An offensive argument advances the positive elements of one’s case. A
defensive argument would be simply answering an opposition’s argument. If we
use the Gun Control topic from above, we can see the difference offensive and
defensive arguments.
Assuming Team A opposes Gun Control, an example of a defensive argument
is when Team B claims guns cause more shootings, and Team A responds with their
defensive argument that Team B’s evidence is based on faulty studies. An
offensive argument would be that allowing handguns increases deterrence,
meaning that violent crime is less likely to occur if criminals think that ordinary
citizens can defend themselves with a handgun.
With this example, we see two different
types of arguments from Team A. First,
there’s the defensive argument where Team A
tries to weaken their opponent’s point. Merely
responding to, trying to deflect, or attempting
to minimize an opposing argument is
defensive. In sports terms, it is a team’s
attempt to prevent the other team from
scoring. Second, there’s the offensive
argument. This argument extends on a
positive aspect of Team A’s case by advocating
that guns cause deterrence. While defensive
arguments prevent the other team from
“scoring,” an offensive argument allows you to
“score” by reaffirming the strength of your case.
Tip Four: Notice Subtle Arguments from your Opponents

For the most part, the contents of a Summary Speech are pretty
straightforward – extend one’s case, weaken the opposing case, and answer the

arguments proffered by your opponent in their last speech. However, occasionally,

your opponent will make some subtle arguments in their previous speech that do
not seem very significant or threatening. If they are ignored, the opposition may
reiterate those arguments in their Summary Speech of Final Focus and amplify
them. If this occurs, you may be in real trouble. For example:
 Team A argues in one of their first two speeches that Gun Control should be
opposed because guns empirically have allowed citizens to defend
themselves. Self-defense is vital when crime is increasing throughout the
country, which is interesting because if crime is increasing, then Gun Control
is obviously not curtailing the use of guns in violent crimes. Their second
point is that Gun Control empowers the Federal Government, and it should
really be an individual state issue.
 In Team B’s Summary Speech, they refute Team A’s claim that guns are
important for self-defense by claiming that self-defense would be
unnecessary if guns were illegal in the first place. They also refute the
federalism argument by pointing out that a long history of Supreme Court
decisions allow Federal control over gun laws.
 Team A, in their Summary Speech, then points out that Team B’s defense of
gun laws is undermined by Team A’s earlier, subtle point that if violent crime
is increasing, then current Gun Control laws are failing, proving that more
Gun Control laws should be resisted.
In this example, we see that Team B’s position is undermined by ignoring a simple,
subtle argument made by their opposition in an earlier speech. While Summary
speakers need to prioritize and begin to narrow the debate, they must be careful to
address all the arguments that are important.
Tip Five: Begin your Speech with what you are winning
There are no hard and fast rules for how you should “order” or structure your
arguments in the Summary Speech. The most important thing to remember is that
you need to make all of your arguments and answer your opponent’s arguments in
the time allotted. However, rhetorically it is usually better to begin with what you
are winning. By “rhetorically,” we mean speaking persuasively.
Beginning your speech with the arguments you are winning emphasizes to
the judge and audience that you are confident, that you are extending the
strengths of your case, that you are being offensive, and that your overarching
position should be remembered since it comes first. If, on the contrary, you begin
your Summary Speech with your opponent’s arguments, then you are symbolically
privileging their points by discussing them first. Addressing them later on in your
speech – as long as they do get addressed – signals to the judge and audience that
you are carefully answer their arguments, but they aren’t as important as the
positions you mentioned first in your speech.
Tip Six: Select and Prioritize

The Summary Speech is a very unique speech. The Summary speaker has to
extend his/her case, weaken the opponent’s case, and answer the key arguments
made in the opponent’s previous speech. As if that weren’t stressful enough, the

Summary Speech is only two minutes, compared to the previous opposition speech
which was four minutes. So, there is a lot to say in the Summary Speech, but not
very much time to say it.
How does a debater accomplish all of these tasks in just two minutes? Since
Public Forum is a presentation-driven, delivery-focused activity, we do not
recommend that the Summary speaker engage in “fast” or “speed” debate.
Instead, they must learn the very important skills of selecting and prioritizing.
Selecting arguments to discuss in the Summary Speech can be a challenge.
One must be careful in what they choose to argue and what they choose to ignore.
Argument selection generally entails prioritizing, which we will discuss in a minute.
However, selection also means that a debater can “group” arguments together,
instead of addressing each of them separately. This saves quite a bit of time. For
example,
 Team A argues that Gun Control laws hurt self-defense, cause more violence,
and undermine the Constitution.
 The Summary Speaker from Team B can group the first two arguments
together, and respond that guns, themselves, create a climate where people
need self-defense, i.e., by causing more crime. If we decreased the number
of guns, it would address both problems. Then, Team B would have to
address the Constitution argument separately.
In this way, the Team B Summary speaker can minimize the time it takes to
address all of Team A’s arguments by selecting the key arguments that can be
grouped together.
Prioritizing arguments is very similar. To prioritize means to decide on the
importance of the arguments. This is vital, since, again, you only have two minutes
to give this speech. A Summary speaker cannot possibly make every argument
they want to, nor can they address every argument his/her opponent has made.
Instead, the Summary speaker must decide on which arguments are the most
important – which ones could win them the debate, and which ones could cost them
the round – and then argue them in the two minutes provided.
Tip Seven: Point out Dropped Arguments

Public Forum debate is different than some other types of debate in that
“dropping” an argument will not necessarily be a major problem, or cost you the
debate. However, like any discussion, failing to address someone’s argument
constitutes consent. If a particularly important argument is unanswered, it
certainly could provide you an edge or might possibly strengthen your overall
position.
Thus, taking good notes and paying close attention to what your opponent
says in their speeches is crucial. Not only do you need to know what they say so
you can refute their points in your next speech, but you also want to closely watch
how they refute your arguments. At a minimum, they may mischaracterize your
argument, or they may mishandle it. Or, they may completely ignore it. If it is the
latter, you should gently point this out in your next speech. Their failure to answer
an important argument from your case is noteworthy, and you should point that out
to the judge and audience.

Tip Eight: Pay Attention to Opponent Evidence

Another reason to take good notes and to pay close attention to your
opponent’s speeches is that they will use evidence to support their claims, just as
you will. This means that the evidence used is very important in trying to prove a
claim or to persuade a judge or audience. As a result, you should listen to your
opponent’s evidence with scrutiny. There are a number of different things you can
look for, some of which include the following:
1. Timeliness – is the evidence recent enough to support the claims being
made? For example, if Team A argues that gun ownership reduces violent
crime, and their evidence points to a study from 1972, then it is probably
outdated.
2. Internal consistency – is the evidence consistent within itself. In other
words, does the author say something different than what your opponent is
quoting later on in their book or article? So, if Team B says too many guns
risk accidents, and their evidence mentions the incidents of young children
who obtain their parents’ guns and accidentally shoot themselves, you may
want to listen closely to see if the author also goes on to say that educating
gun owners is the solution to that problem, not more Gun Control laws.
3. External consistency – is the evidence consistent with other sources of
evidence on the same topic. Here we look for the “consensus” of experts or
scholars in the field. A debater can find anyone who will say anything, but to
find evidence that is consistent with what major scholars and experts say is
much more important. The weight of “consensus” evidence is much stronger
than evidence coming from someone who is not an authority or who makes
maverick claims against the community of experts and scholars.
4. Bias – does the author have self-interests at stake with the arguments
they’re making? For example, Team A argues that Gun Control laws
undermine important freedoms of this country. But, their evidence comes
from LaPierre, the former president of the National Rifle Association. In this
case, LaPierre probably has some self-interest involved here, since has ties
to the largest gun lobby in the country.
5. Statistical Validity – are the statistics being quoted accurate, reliable, and
valid? There are a number of tests, or questions, you may ask about
statistics. Statistics are used frequently because they are quick, visual, and
easy to remember. However, statistics are also based on a number of
different methodological stages, any of which could be faulty. For example,
was the sample size adequate, was it random, was it representative, what
types of questions were asked, were they stacked, and who was asked the
questions? And so on. The point here is that just because a debater has a
statistic, it doesn’t mean it is proof.
As you can see, there are many different ways evidence can be contested, and
this list is not exhaustive. There are other questions you can ask as well to
determine if the evidence being used is valuable, strong, or weak. The list here will
get you started, and you should listen carefully to the opponent’s evidence to see if
there are problems.

Tip Nine: Think Globally-Holistically

Don’t lose sight of the forest because you’re staring at a tree. Thinking
holistically means you should remember the big picture and try to see how all of
the different arguments interrelate to each other. Thinking holistically will help you
summarize key arguments in a shorter amount of time. It
will also help you focus on what is important in the debate.
Instead of getting side-tracked on unimportant arguments or
arguments that don’t bear weight on the key, overarching
positions in the debate, a Summary speaker who thinks
holistically will be able to discern important arguments from
unimportant ones.
Team A argues that Gun Control laws will add to the
federal bureaucracy, in addition to their other arguments
about freedom, lower gang violence and self-defense. The
Summary speaker for Team B would do well to consider how
the bureaucracy argument fits into the larger picture. Can
Team A win on this argument? Is it central to Team A’s overarching position? Is
there really an impact to this argument? The answer to these questions is probably
not. Thus, Team B’s Summary speaker may want to avoid this argument, or
mention it only briefly when discussing another argument, as they highlight and
emphasize the key positions in the debate.
In this way, the Summary speaker can avoid unnecessary arguments
intended to distract and derail him/her. Instead, they can focus on the vital points
and interweave them together in a holistic manner.
Tip Ten: Confidence

One of the most important things to remember for the Summary Speech is to not
get flustered. It is easy to feel overwhelmed, to get scared, or to be intimidated if
you are the Summary speaker. There will be a lot of arguments – from your team
and your opponent – that need to be addressed, that need to be focused, and that
need to be synthesized. And, you only have two minutes. However, if you follow
our tips listed here, you should be able to handle these challenges, particularly if
you practice. Also, at the very least, avoid sounding like you are flustered or
overwhelmed. Instead, sound as confident as you can, even if you’re not. If you
sound like you’re winning, chances are the judge and audience will think you’re
winning too.


The Final Focus
Imagine that you are a trial attorney. You know that at the end of the trial,
you will need to approach the jury and give them your closing arguments. This is
after the opening-statements, all of the cross-examinations, and so on. You also
know that your closing argument will be the last thing the judge and jury will
remember from your side. You know that no matter how strong your evidence is or
how strong your case is or how well you asked questions, the closing argument will
be the most important moment for your side during the entire trial. In a similar
way, the “Final Focus” in a Public Forum debate summarizes, clarifies and provides
the final, memorable moment to your case for the judge. In a Public Forum round,
the Final Focus is your closing argument.
WHAT IS THE “FINAL FOCUS”?

Also known as the “Last Shot,” the Final Focus is the last speech by each team,
given by the team’s second speaker. The purpose of this speech is for the debater
to argue passionately to the judge why their team should win the round. Since it
is, literally, the “final focus,” no new arguments are allowed. However, references
to previous arguments, argument summaries, and the “weighing” of arguments are
expected. For many judges, the content in a Final Focus speech is the deciding
factor in a close decision. As a result, debaters should pay special attention to the
substance and manner of their Final Focus
speeches.
A FANTASTIC FINAL FOCUS

The final focus picks up where the summary
left off – getting down to the basics of the
round, picking one or two issues to
emphasize above all else, and showing why
those issues are enough to win your side the
debate. Since the final focus speech is only
one minute long, you have the difficult task
of summing up your strongest argument in a
way that proves why it should be considered
before the other team’s argument, making a
lasting impression on the judge, and doing so
in a very limited amount of time. Follow
these steps to make your final focus
fantastic!
1. Identify the Key Issues

Your final focus should only take on one or
sometimes two issues in the debate. This means that even if you think you are
winning several arguments, you should choose the best one to stake the debate on.

There are several ways to identify your most important argument – sometimes it is
the one with the biggest impact (millions of people die from preventable diseases
every year because they lack health insurance, perhaps), or it could be an
argument that your opponents were particularly weak in answering (perhaps they
conceded your argument that universal health insurance would lead to a better,
more efficient health care system). Either of those arguments could be enough on
their own to convince a judge to support a universal health insurance resolution.
The trick is to choose your strongest argument based on the rest of the debate and
the way you think the judge will view your case. Once you’ve identified the most
important issue in the debate, put everything you have into it.
2. Present Voting Issues

Once you’ve identified the one or two arguments that are most central to the
debate, advance these arguments as “voting issues.” Voting issues are arguments
that you think merit a judge’s ballot. You should phrase your most important and
persuasive arguments as voting issues – don’t label an argument a voting issue
unless it’s enough to win you the debate. “A national health insurance plan is
feasible and could be implemented quickly” is probably not a strong enough
argument to be a voting issue. Why? It doesn’t prove why national health insurance
is needed or desirable – it merely proves that it could be done. Instead, your voting
issue should be that “national health insurance will benefit millions of Americans
and will have negligible drawbacks.” This is a better voting issue because it shows
the benefits of national health insurance and compares these benefits to potential
costs. It shows the judge the implications of voting for the resolution and proves
why the resolution matters. Once you’ve identified which of your arguments should
be the voting issue(s) in your final focus, spend as much time as you can showing
why these voting issues are important enough to warrant the judge’s ballot.
3. Defend “Decision Rules”

A decision rule is a type of voting issue argument that can be very useful in your
final focus speech. A decision rule says that the judge should support some
particular goal or idea as an absolute priority no matter what the opposition says.
For example, a decision rule on a resolution about affirmative action could be “we
should do whatever we can to combat racism, no matter what.” This is a decision
rule because it claims that a particular goal (in this case fighting racism) is
something the judge should always support. Decision rules are useful in cases
where you can prove that the resolution is simply the right moral thing to do. They
are also strategic because they neutralize the other side’s arguments – even if
affirmative action isn’t a perfect solution to racism, as the opposition might argue,
it still must be supported simply because it’s the right thing to do. In this way,
decision rules can cater to judges’ personal feelings about policy issues and can
make your case resonate with their own views. This is a powerful way to persuade
judges. Be careful not to overuse decision rules, however. Some judges dislike it
when debaters use multiple decision rules – every issue in the debate can’t be
something that overrides all other considerations. Some judges are also skeptical of
decision rules because they perceive them as attempts to manipulate the debate
and avoid discussing the issues by appealing to absolute morality. Only use a

decision rule when your case has a clear method of addressing a problem that
many people see as morally justified – racism, sexism, discrimination,
environmental exploitation, etc.
4. Make a Strong Conclusion

Since your final focus speech is only one minute long, you will not have enough
time for a long summary conclusion. Instead, make sure to conclude with a strong
and succinct statement that will make a lasting impression on the judge. Your final
focus is the last thing in the judge’s mind before he/she makes his/her decision, so
it should be memorable. Conclude with a short restatement of the fundamental
reason that the judge should endorse your case and why your arguments should be
valued above all else. A good concluding statement for the con side’s final focus on
a resolution ending the death penalty could be, “we have shown convincingly that
the death penalty is necessary to deter crime and is the only possible just response
to murder. For these reasons, we feel you must endorse the death penalty by
voting against the resolution.” The conclusion should leave no doubt in the judge’s
mind that your side should win the debate. A strong conclusion can seal the other
team’s fate and lead your team to victory!
KEY TIPS FOR A GREAT FINAL FOCUS
Tip 1: Know your Overarching Position of Advocacy

The purpose of the Final Focus is to summarize a team’s arguments from the
debate, but more importantly, it is to advance a single, overarching position. An
overarching position is the most important component to a team’s advocacy. For
example:
Team B is advocating that the death penalty should be abolished. There are
many reasons they could use to support this position (e.g., innocent people
die, it is state-sanctioned murder, race and class are disproportionately
affected by the death penalty, it is inhumane, it hurts America’s global
credibility, etc.). But, they don’t have the time or the evidence to advance
all of the reasons for why the death penalty should be abolished. Instead,
with their knowledge that the ACLU published a report1 that indicates 123
innocent people have died as a result of the death penalty, Team B argues
that the killing of innocent life should be rejected and, as such, is a reason to
abolish the death penalty.
In this way, a team can advocate a specific reason for their case. While other
arguments will no doubt occur in the debate, the team will want to concentrate or
emphasize their main point (aka “overarching position”) throughout the round.
Debaters are tempted to advocate all of their arguments, but in this style of debate,
more than any other, it is vital that the second speaker of a team understand what
is their key position of advocacy. The skills of decision-making and discernment are
crucial. During the Final Focus, the team should focus mainly, if not solely, on their
overarching position, since it is the key reason – as advocated in the debate – for
why judges and audience members should support them. When they focus on their

overarching position of advocacy, a simple method is used for how to deliver this
concept in a speech: State it, Explain it, and Weigh it. This method will be
explained in just a moment.
Tip 2: Prepare for the Final Focus at the Beginning of the

Round
Since a team needs to focus on their overarching position of advocacy during the
Final Focus, it is important that all of a team’s arguments throughout the debate
are consistent with their overarching position. As soon as the debate begins, a
team should be thinking about the Final Focus. As the introduction to this chapter
points out, a Final Focus speech is much like a trial lawyer’s closing arguments.
Every detail of the trial should be thought of in advance with the idea that it will
support the closing argument. Likewise, every argument, every piece of evidence,
every question asking during a Cross Fire, every answer given during a Cross Fire,
etc., should be consciously done with the idea that they will help the last speaker
give the Final Focus.
Tip 3: State your Overarching Position of Advocacy

As the second speaker begins the Final Focus, they need to explicitly articulate
what his/her team’s overarching position of advocacy is. This is similar to a thesis
statement in a research paper. In other words, it should be very obvious to a judge
and to an audience member what, exactly, the team is advocating. This is
especially important since it is the final moment that the judge and audience will
remember of the team’s case. Thus, after a quick attention-grabbing device, the
Final Focus speaker will want to state their overarching position of advocacy. Here
is an example:
Seneca, the great Roman philosopher around the time of Christ, once said,
“If you judge, investigate.” We know that every capital punishment trial is
extensive, and often painstakingly long. But, according to the ACLU, 123
innocent people have been executed since 1976, when the death penalty was
declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently those trials
didn’t investigate enough. Since our country is founded on the idea that
innocents should be protected, and since there is an easy alternative to the
death penalty found in life without parole, we advocate the abolishment of
the death penalty. I will begin by first briefly reviewing our key arguments….
Notice that after the advocacy statement (“we advocate the abolishment of the
death penalty”) that the speaker uses a transition into the next portion of their
speech. But in this way, the overarching position of advocacy is clear, direct and
explicit.
STEP FOUR: EXPLAINING YOUR OVERARCHING POSITION

OF ADVOCACY
After clearly stating your position of advocacy, you’ll need to explain what it is. It
is not sufficient just to refresh the judge and audiences’ minds of what you said
earlier in the debate. You do not have much time in this speech to explain all of

your arguments and also weaken all of your opponent’s arguments. This is why
you should stay focused on your overarching position of advocacy. For example,
We referred to arguments about how the death penalty discriminates against

race and socio-economic class, and we said that the death penalty hurts
America’s image abroad. Additionally, our opponents claimed that the death
penalty is useful for deterrence of other crimes. However, none of these are
as important as the protection of innocent life. This is particularly true when
there is a safe, tested alternative to the death penalty, found in life without
parole, that can equally deter other vicious crimes.
In this way, the debater may very briefly refer to some of the other arguments in
the debate, but he/she does not summarize or dwell on them. And, in so doing, the
debater weakens their opponent’s position by essentially downplaying its
significance in light of this debater’s overarching position of advocacy. In other
words, the debater tells a story – or paints a picture – for the judge and audience
about the significance of their advocacy. The weave this position throughout the
different components that were argued in the debate so that in the end it should
become obvious to the judge and audience that their overarching position of
advocacy reigns supreme.
Next, the debater will need to further explain the intricacies of their overarching
position of advocacy. This will entail referring to key pieces of evidence (such as
the ACLU report in the example above) and possibly to very important stories or
examples used previously in the debate. The debater will need to explain why their
position is so important (in the above example, the debater would need to explain
why protecting innocent life is a value to uphold above other values). And, finally,
the debater needs to explain why their position is superior to their opponent’s case,
which is discussed in the next step.
STEP FIVE: “WEIGHING” YOUR OVERARCHING POSITION

OF ADVOCACY
It is not sufficient for the second speaker to merely reiterate and explain further
what his/her team’s overarching position of advocacy is. They must also explain
why it is better than their opponent’s position or case. There are a couple of ways
you can frame your position in a way that is superior to your opponent’s.
First, you may argue that your position helps the most people (the utilitarian
approach). This allows you to discuss how their case is superior since more
people will be more beneficially affected by your case than the opposition.
Second, you may argue that a certain value must be protected at all costs
(the deontic or a priori approach). As with the example above, the
protection of innocent human life may be regarded as a value that
supercedes all other values.

Third, you may argue your position deals with a problem more quickly than
the opposition (time frame). So, all other things being equal, you would
appeal to the judge and audience to resolve a situation sooner rather than
later.
Fourth, you may argue your position averts a greater harm that your
opposition doesn’t avert. For example, abolishing the death penalty may
save more money than keeping it, which is important during a recessionary
economy.
Fifth, you may argue the certainty of your case is more important than the
speculation of the opposition. Concerning the death penalty example, you
may claim that the 123 innocent lives that have perished as a result of the
death penalty is a certainty, versus the speculation that the death penalty
causes deterrence, as the opposition argues.
Finally, you may combine any of the “weighing” approaches, so long as they
are consistent.
In the end, it is important for the second speaker to always answer the “so
what?” or “who cares?” questions during the Final Focus. Those are the two most
important questions that the judge and audience will have, and it is up to the
second speaker to answer them. In other words, why should a judge or audience
member care about what you are saying? Furthermore, why should they believe
you over what someone else (namely, your opponent) says? If you can answer
these questions, you will be on your way to effectively “weighing” your overarching
position vis-à-vis your opponent’s.
Step Six: Deflect Arguments from the Opposition

The second speaker will want to devote almost the entirety of his/her Final Focus
speech on the strengths of their case. However, this does not mean they should
completely dismiss or ignore the claims made by their opponents. The best way to
handle the arguments from the opposition in the time allotted for the Final Focus
speech is to incorporate them when the debater is explaining and weighing the
team’s overarching position (steps four and five, above). This may prove too
challenging and difficult for some debaters during certain debates, however.
Another way to handle opposition arguments is to devote a portion of one’s speech
to their arguments and deflect them. Essentially, deflection means suggesting that
they are not important or are trivial when compared to the gravity of the
arguments presented by your team. Frequently, however, the opposition’s
arguments will not be easily deflected. They must be taken seriously. If that is the
case, you will need to devote some additional time to weaken their arguments
and/or case. This can be done in a couple of ways:
First, try to turn their arguments. This means you can incorporate what they
are saying into your own case. For example, if they say life without parole in
prison is too expensive, you can say that it is actually cheaper, per inmate,

than keeping them on death row (after you consider the legal fees, appeals
process, etc.).
Second, try to minimize their argument. Often you can discuss how an
opposition argument is not as important as they claim. In the death penalty
example, you can argue that their deterrence argument rarely has any effect
on other criminals.
Third, try to maximize your argument. This is when you compare the
importance of your position to theirs. You can do this when you “weigh” your
position (see step five).
Fourth, try to question the credibility of their case. This entails you
questioning the evidence they’ve used, the quality of their reasoning, etc. If
you can argue that their evidence is biased, or is out-dated, or comes from
an unreliable source, then you can argue that your evidence is better,
meaning that your overall position is stronger. Similarly, if you can find flaws
in their reasoning, identify fallacies, point out inconsistencies, or show
alternate forms of explanation for their arguments (i.e., it
isn’t the death penalty that deters other crimes, but
rather the horror stories of prison life in general), then
you can position your case as much stronger than the
opposition’s.
Step Seven: Don’t Forget the Style of

your Delivery
Obviously the content of a debater’s arguments goes to
the quality of their overarching position. But, judges and
audience members, like most people, are not persuaded
by logic, evidence, and intellect alone. The use of
emotion and style is also very useful when trying to persuade others. Aristotle
called these the three rhetorical proofs – ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and
logos (logic/reasoning). Rarely, according to Aristotle, is a person persuaded by
just one of these components. So, during the Final Focus speech, a debater would
be wise to remember their credibility and their emotional appeals. Here are some
suggestions:
1. Focus on your main arguments, but don’t ignore your opponent’s

arguments. This helps boost your credibility (ethos) as a thorough debater,
and one who is not self-consumed.
2. Use rhetorical questions (or questions that have an obvious

answer to them, such as “isn’t innocent life worth protecting?”).
During the actual debate you should make all of your arguments declarative
(statements) so that they are direct and powerful. However, during the Final
Focus, you may want to use some rhetorical questions so the judge and
audience become involved in what you are saying. Rhetorical questions are

also more memorable, which can be helpful when the judge is writing their
ballot.
3. Have a positive, confident attitude. If your attitude is sheepish, shy,

unfocused, or cold, then your arguments will not resonate with the judge and
audience. However, if you are bold, direct, and matter-of-fact, then your
arguments will appear more certain and sincere. Remember to put yourself
in the shoes of the judge and audience and think about what is most
convincing to you.
4. Refer to the evidence you and your partner have used throughout
the debate. While this seems like it is logos-oriented appeal, it actually
goes to ethos. Reminding the judge and audience of your important claims
and evidence from earlier establishes that you have been paying attention,
that you are sincere, and that you are confident.
5. Use strong eye contact. This is very important when you are trying to
connect with the judge and audience. This also suggests that you are very
confident in your presentation and arguments.
6. Be clear, simple, and concise. You need easy-to-understand

explanations of your arguments. This is not to suggest that your judge or
audience is unintelligent, but rather a succinct and simple explanation is
easier to remember.
7. Be organized. This, too, helps a judge and audience remember your

points. Also important is that organization improves your ethos. An
organized person is perceived as a knowledgeable and proficient person.
8. Be efficient with your time. Obviously, there is not much time during
a Final Focus to cover everything you need to address. Using your time
wisely will not only enable you to articulate all of the arguments you need to
make, but it will also allow you to come across as very organized.
9. Focus, Focus, Focus. Persuasive appeals require a speaker to focus

their attention entirely to the matter at hand. A debater must try to
eliminate other distractions and seriously devote him/herself to the speech.
10. Make your final arguments memorable. You should be professional

and poised, but remember to leave a lasting impression on your judge and
audience. A catchy, yet appropriate quotation, a brief story or anecdote, or
simply a powerfully worded sentence that is germane to your topic will go a
long way in making your Final Focus speech a memorable one.
FOOTNOTE: 1. The American Civil Liberties Association, “Death Penalty

101,” March 2007, accessed 7/15/07,
http://www.aclu.org/image/asset_upload_file758_29292.pdf.


Tournament Preparation
Take care of logistical issues:
Make sure you have all of the materials that you need before you go into
debate rounds. Print your cases. Make sure your cases are organized. Print your
evidence. Make sure that all of your evidence has full source citations. Make sure
your evidence is organized. Buy enough paper or legal pads to make it through the
tournament. Stock up on pens so that you don’t have to be the team that has to
ask in front of the judge to borrow an extra pen. Make sure that you have two
timers between you and your partner. Multiple timers are important in case your
judge needs a timer for the debate. If you have two timers, your judge is able to
easily time and listen to your speeches, while you are also able to keep accurate
time for yourself.
Prepare your cases:

Before you go in a debate round, you should thoroughly know your cases. At
a minimum, this means that you should have them written out, printed, and timed.
Judges view initial speeches that go over time as unprepared and unprofessional.
While some people may prefer to extemporaneously give their cases every round,
there is always the chance that you will draw a blank at a critical moment, so you
should always have a paper version of exactly what you intended to say. If you are
really that concerned about eye
contact, you may just want to
memorize a few of the most
important sentences in your
case so that you can maintain
absolute eye contact when it is
vital.
More basically, make sure that
every argument that you have
has explanation or reasoning
for why it is true, as well as an
explanation for why the judge
should care about the
argument. If you do not have
this explanation, then you
shouldn’t expect the judge to do the extra thinking to vote for you. Also, if you
think your argument could be too complicated, don’t be afraid to run it by your
teachers or parents. If your parents and teachers can’t understand it, odds are that
your judges will be unable to understand it. If the person you read your argument
to says they don’t understand, try throwing in an example to see if that is sufficient
to clarify your point. If the example doesn’t help, try asking them what you could
do to improve your argument.
You should always practice your delivery of your cases before tournaments.
You should know exactly what words to emphasize. Good emphasis is particularly
important, because many Public Forum judges may not write down more than a few

key words for any particular arguments. Hence, the words that you stress by
slowing down or increasing your volume are the words that the judge is likely to
write down. You should underline or bold the key words and phrases that your
judge should be writing down. Practicing your case reading is also important
because it will improve your eye contact. If you have good eye contact, it indicates
that you have spent a lot of time with your material, and that you are a confident
public speaker. If the judge views you as a competent speaker, they will give your
arguments more credibility, which should increase your win percentage.
If you have more than one case or set of arguments, you should have a clear
method of organizing these in the round. You may wish to keep your cases in file
folders or a portfolio. These small steps will help you look more professional and
organized. Make sure you keep your papers crisp and clean; do not fold or play with
your papers during speeches. Some people use plain black construction paper on
which to mount their cases, while other debaters may use report page protectors.
Having your cases printed out will make you look professional – if the judge views
you as more professional, they are more likely to be willing to vote for your
arguments.
Writing more than one case is always a good idea in case you find that 1) judges do
not respond well to one case or 2) your opponents some how find out what
arguments you are using. Hence, having multiple cases can give you the edge in
close debates at late elimination rounds of tournaments. Make sure that you
prepare all of the cases you may use. Showing up with a case that you have never
prepared before is usually obvious to both your judge and your opponent.
Prepare your rebuttal strategy:

When you are preparing your cases, you want to be on the look out for
arguments that other teams may want to use. When you find these arguments,
you and your partner should brainstorm a list of responses to each of these
arguments. Preparing these responses ahead of time is useful because you and
your partner will both be on the same page in terms of strategy against your
opponents’ arguments. It may help you to write these responses out word for word
(even if you don’t want to read them off of a sheet of paper) because it will give
you an idea of how long each set of responses will take you to make.
It is often said, “Good defense may win Super Bowls, but it doesn’t win debate
rounds.” The wisdom in this is relatively simple – you may have stellar responses to
your opponents’ case, but if you don’t have a compelling reason to actively vote for
you (instead of just not voting for the opposing side), the judge will probably not
vote for you. To win, you need to have pithy explanations for your arguments for
later rebuttal speeches and the final focus. Pithy explanations will always have the
reasoning for why the argument is true and why the judge should care about the
argument. The best explanations will use powerful rhetoric to stand out in the
judges mind (e.g. “the Fairness Doctrine destroys free speech”) and may also use
mnemonic devices or literary devices, such as alliteration (e.g. “the Fairness
Doctrine silences speech”). Using tactics like this will make sure that even judges
who are not paying close attention will have something that is easy to remember
when they are filling out their ballot.
Practicing your rebuttals ahead of time is important for the same reason that
practicing your case delivery is important. If you can maintain good eye contact

(especially if you can do it better than the opposing team), the judge is much more
likely to believe your arguments than your opponent’s arguments. You also can
never get a truly accurate time on how long it takes to make an argument until you
practice making it. You will also find that you can make your arguments in less
time if you practice delivering them multiple times.
Prepare snappy Cross Fire questions:

Cross Fire is one of the most important parts of Public Forum because it is
when the judge gets to directly compare between debaters from the opposing
sides. Maintaining professionalism is obviously important, as rude Cross Fire
almost always ends badly for both teams in the form of drastically lower speaker
points. One way to have a leg up on your opponent is to think of a couple of
questions that help your side ahead of time. One caveat to creating questions
ahead of time, don’t try to turn Cross Fire into an episode of Law and Order:
Criminal Intent or Matlock; most of your opponents will probably not give you a
straight answer to a question that is obviously against their interests. When
crafting your questions, always ask yourself, “How would I answer this if I were my
opponent?” If you wouldn’t give you an answer that would be useful, you need to
rethink how you are framing the question.
You should also practice your Cross Fire skills. You and your partner should
take turns asking each other difficult questions about your case. This exercise will
help you think of questions to ask, in case your opponent has a similar case, and it
will help you more easily answer the tough questions that your opponents will ask
of you. In a similar variation of this drill, have you or your partner pretend to
advocate a particular position, and then ask questions based off of that position.
This exercise is a useful tool in helping you craft questions against arguments that
your opponents will run, as well as improve your ability to think on your feet.
Debate practice rounds:

One of the most overlooked means of preparation is engaging in practice
debates. One of the nice things about the Public Forum format is that it does not
take a tremendous amount of time to have a debate, so your team should be able
to easily organize scrimmages after school. Going through a whole debate is useful
because you get to practice
your strategies from
beginning to end. This
includes attack an
opponent’s case while, at
the same time, being able
to rebuild and compare
your arguments to their
arguments. Although
individual speaking drills
may be useful, they only
encapsulate a small portion
of the debate round, so
make sure you are

debating plenty of full rounds.

Whenever you complete a practice round, make sure you find the areas
where you could improve the most. If you find that you didn’t respond to an
argument very well, you should spend time re-giving that portion of the speech.
Keep rehearsing that portion of the speech until you are able to give it perfectly
twice in a row.
Practice good speaking habits:

Many debaters often use words inefficiently. Being word efficient in Public
Forum debate is more important than all other formats because the time is so
constricted. Every time you say “um” or “like” during a speech, especially in the
Final Focus, cuts down a significant portion of your total speech time. If you feel
like you are using words inefficiently, have some one else listen to you. They are
more likely to pick up on your bad vocal habits than you are. If you don’t have
anyone else to listen to you, try tape recording yourself. Once you have yourself
taped, write up your speech word for word, including all of your vocalized pauses,
such as “um”. Once you have transcribed your speech, write it out again, but edit
out all of the time wasting words, and try to phrase your speech more efficiently. If
you don’t have a tape recorder, you can always practice giving speeches. If you
ever catch yourself using words inefficiently, stop yourself, and start re-giving the
speech from the beginning. If you do this every time you make an error in
practice, you will soon stop using inefficient language.
If you have a problem with your gesturing or posture, make sure you have
some one else watching you during practice. Have them physically correct you
during your speeches so that you can see and feel exactly what you are doing
wrong. Things to watch out for include: tapping your foot in time to your speaking;
gesturing below your waist; wild gesturing; etc.
All of these exercises will make you look more professional in the eyes of
your judge. If you look more professional than your opponents, the judge will give
more credibility to your arguments in close debates. While these items may seem
minor, they often make the difference between good teams and great teams.


Adapting to Lay Judges
Since public forum debate is meant to be exactly what its name implies – a public
forum for debates to occur – you will likely be judged by community members who
might not have formal debate training. This can be a little disconcerting if you are
used to being judged by people with prior debate experience. Nevertheless, you
should see public forum’s emphasis on community judging as an opportunity to
expand your public speaking skills by adapting to a judging pool made up of
intelligent community members instead of highly trained debate coaches. This
section will demonstrate the importance of judge adaptation in public forum debate
and will give you the skills necessary to win any judge’s ballot.
1. Don’t talk down to Lay Judges!

Some debaters mistakenly believe layperson
judges to be incapable of following their arguments
or understanding the intricacies of a debate. This,
however, is very often untrue. Just because
someone has not been to years of debate
tournaments does not mean they won’t be able to
follow your arguments or render a fair decision.
One of the worst mistake debaters make when
adapting to lay judges is talking down to them.
Don’t assume you need to explain every single
detail of your case. You don’t need to extra spend
time outlining how the U.S. Congress passes
legislation, or detailing other items that are
common knowledge for the average, educated person. Instead, assume that your
judge is intelligent, informed about current events, and is interested in evaluating
your arguments fairly and accurately. You don’t need to tone down all aspects of
your arguments – just tone down the debate jargon and speedy delivery you may
be accustomed to from other kinds of debate.
2. Polish Your Delivery!

In 1960, Vice-President Richard Nixon debated Senator John F. Kennedy in the first
televised presidential debates. Nixon had been recently injured, was unhealthy, and
refused to wear makeup on camera, while Kennedy was tanned, charismatic, and
visually captivating. The two candidates were neck-and-neck on the issues. Those
who heard the debates on the radio thought Nixon was victorious, while the
television viewers proclaimed Kennedy the winner. The key to Kennedy’s success?
He appeared calm, looked to be in control of the debate, and was therefore more
persuasive. The lesson to be learned from this example is that although the content
of your arguments must be logically sound and well-supported, your delivery is also
vital to your success as a debater. Public forum debate requires competitors to
speak powerfully and authoritatively, to be engaging and entertaining speakers,
and above all to persuade. To speak well in public forum debate, follow these tips
and remember to practice, practice, practice!

FIRST, make sure to speak from the podium. When you’re speaking, you
should exude control of the debate. One simple way to do this is to stand
behind the podium and avoid pacing or rocking, which show nervousness and
can be distracting. A debater standing confidently behind the podium will
command a judge’s attention.
SECOND, project your voice. When reading your case or looking at your
flow, avoid holding paper in front of your face because this muffles your
voice. Speak strongly and clearly, but avoid overdoing it. Don’t sound like
you’re shouting or that you’re angry – instead, sound calm, collected, and
emphatic.
THIRD, it’s important to sound confident when delivering speeches
and asking/answering questions in public forum debate. One good
way to combat nervousness and appear to be more confident is to simply
fake it – even if you’re nervous and unsure of your arguments, deliver them
as though you knew they were unbeatable. You’ll likely fool your judge, you
might even fool the other team, and with enough practice you might even
fool yourself.
FOURTH, make sure to speak using correct pronunciation and
grammar. It is very damaging to your credibility if a judge notices you
repeatedly using poor grammar, and this credibility loss can undermine an
otherwise-sound argument.
FIFTH, speaker normally—not like a debater! Because layperson judges
are relatively untrained in debate, they are much less likely to tolerate
idiosyncrasies in your speaking (such as double-breathing because of quick
delivery) than seasoned coaches or college-student judges. Layperson judges
are looking for effective public speakers, not who can do the “line-by-line”
perfectly or speak quicker than their opponent. If you make these
adjustments to your speaking style, you will improve your speaker rankings
as well as your chances of victory in front of layperson judges.
3. Make “Real World” Arguments!

Public forum topics are often prominent and timely issues that an average,
educated person could reasonably be expected to be familiar with. Accordingly,
your arguments should be based on the topic’s real-world implications, free from
jargon, and should avoid long chains of links.
REAL-WORLD IMPACTS: If the
resolution supports expanding
President Bush’s tax cut plan,
when arguing the con side you
shouldn’t argue that the plan
would immediately crush the U.S.
economy and spark a global
nuclear war. This scenario is
extremely unlikely and will not
resonate with layperson judges.
Judges will likely ask themselves,
“Why haven’t all the tax cuts plans
that have passed already caused

such horrific consequences?” Arguments that aren’t believable aren’t likely to

go far in public forum. Instead of the outlandish “nuke-war” scenario, argue
that expanded tax cuts would likely only benefit the wealthiest Americans
and would therefore widen the rich-poor gap in America. While the impact to
widening the rich-poor gap is obviously not as catastrophic as a recession-
sparked nuclear war, the link between tax cuts and the impact is much more
believable and “real-world.”
CUT THE JARGON: “Our opponents dropped our second argument from the
summary speech which takes out the internal link to the disad and means
that the case outweighs their offense!” While you may know exactly what
this statement means, a layperson judge will likely not be familiar with
debate jargon. This does not mean that they don’t understand your
arguments; it just means that you need to communicate your argument in
more accessible language. To revise the jargon-heavy example above, refer
to your previous argument by name rather than by number, and state your
argument’s implication clearly. “Our argument that tax cuts would benefit all
Americans has not been answered. This means that they have NO reason left
that the resolution would harm anyone!” is a much better way to phrase it.
AVOID LONG CHAINS OF LINKS: When putting your cases together, don’t
try to spin unique scenarios and impacts by stringing links together. For
example, if the resolution supports reducing U.S. agricultural subsidies, your
case should not discuss how cutting subsidies for U.S. cotton farmers would
cause overseas cotton markets to expand, which would cause increased
cotton cultivation, which harms earthworms in the soil under cotton fields,
thus crushing biodiversity and killing ecosystems. Focus on the direct,
tangible effects of the resolution, on both the pro and con side. For example,
your case against subsidies could discuss the friction between the U.S. and
the European Union that American agricultural subsidies cause, and that
friction’s implications for international trade. Before presenting a case, ask
yourself, “Can I show direct links between the resolution and my
arguments?” If not, your argument probably won’t be persuasive to a
layperson judge.
4. Make Your Arguments Resonate with your Judge!

Finding arguments that resonate with layperson judges is similar in many respects
to focusing on real-world arguments. Most layperson judges can best be described
as concerned citizens eager to see thoughtful solutions to social problems. When
crafting your cases, try to find an angle on the resolution that will strike a chord
with an average, educated American. Focus your discussion on the resolution’s
relationship to social issues that affect a wide variety of people: workers’ rights, the
environment, discrimination, the family, etc. Show the tangible benefits of
supporting the resolution on the pro side or the real-world consequences and
disadvantages on the con side. Winning public forum debate can boil down to a few
essential steps if you know how to connect with your judge: point out the problems
of the status quo in concrete and realistic terms, show a connection between your
case and something your judge can relate to, and offer logical reasons to support
the resolution.

How To Debate PF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Debate PF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Breaking Down Barriers:

Breaking Down Barriers:

The Public Forum Section

PUBLIC FORUM SECTION ..............................................Page

Version 4.5a (2014 Edition) is

Sharing, Printing and Photocopying Breaking Down Barriers: How to

West Coast Publishing

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Public Forum Chapter 1

Explanation and Topics

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Why do Public Forum Debate?

THE FORMAT – SO YOU WANT TO BE THE MASTER OF SNAPPY

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

GETTING SMARTER – SO YOU

EXPOSURE TO CURRENT EVENTS – SO YOU WANT TO IMPRESS YOUR

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

IMPROVING YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS – SO YOU WANT TO BE

ORGANIZATIONAL SKILLS – SO YOU

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE - SO YOU WANT TO MEET COOL PEOPLE?

STRATEGIC DECISIONS – SO YOU WANT TO BE SNEAKY?

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Public Forum Chapter 2

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Step 3-Choose Good Arguments

2) Is the evidence from a reputable source? Getting evidence that says

3) Is the evidence concise and understandable, or is it long-winded

Step 4-Prepare the Actual Case

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

I. Introduction to the topic

II. Definition of terms

III. Arguments for your Case

PROBLEM-SOLUTION CASE ARGUMENTS

1. Media monopolies squelch political expression

2. Media monopolies harm democracy

3. Diversifying media provides democratic expression of

GIVE REASONS CASE ARGUMENTS

1. The Patriot Act deters terrorism

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

2. The Patriot Act respects people’s civil rights

3. The Patriot Act prevents general crime.

See “Support for your Case” Later in this Chapter.

Step 5: Prepare Backup

PREPARE “CON” RESPONSES

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Tip 1- Chose your words carefully

While it important to make your language assessable, it is very important

Tip 2-Opening your speech

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Tip 3- Prepare the Case as a team.

Tip 4-Practice your speech.

1) What do you think about the

2) How was my speed?-As a general

3) Did I look confident- Judges,

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

Tip 5- The 2nd Constructive Speech

Tip 6-Arts and Crafts

SUPPORT FOR YOUR CASE

1. FIREARMS IN THE HOME INCREASES THE RISK OF SUICIDE

West Coast Publishing www.wcdebate.com

STATISTICS: Specific numbers--usually from studies