DUDL Public forum Debate (PF)
Students in Public Forum [abbreviated to PF] debate in teams of two about a topic that changes every month. They are assigned sides of Proponents or Opponents of the topic randomly by a coin toss or by the tab room. They typically structure their arguments in contentions supported with properly cited evidence. They engage in a "crossfire" period of questioning to further develop their argumentation. As a judge you will listen and take notes. At the end of the debate, you need to decide which team did better as debaters, NOT necessarily the side you agree with when thinking about it outside the debate competition. You will also assign speaker points to each competitor. Areas to consider are
Round Structure
In policy debate, sides are determined by the tabulation system and the Affirmative side always goes first. PF does not follow the same structure. Each round begins with a coin toss; the winning team selects either
NOTE: This structure means Opposition teams can speak first in a round. Proposition teams do not always go first.
NOTE: During in-person tournaments, the team that gives the first speech sits to the LEFT of the judge.
Public Forum is a debate event specifically developed to promote communication with an engaged member of the community on a current topic affecting society. As a judge, you will choose a winner and assign speaker points. Judges evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not on issues they think a particular side should have covered.
Judges should assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. The pro should prove that the resolution is true, and the con should prove that the resolution is not true. When deciding the round, judges should ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?” Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; judges should discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Plans (formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation), counterplans and kritiks (off-topic arguments) are not allowed. Generalized, practical solutions should support a position of advocacy. Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence may strengthen – but not replace – arguments.
Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and they will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen.A team should not be penalized for failing to understand his or her opponent’s unclear arguments.
In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. Points provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative “quality of debating.” That being said, all judges come to evaluate rounds using different paradigms, so students are encouraged to ask judges their paradigms before the round begins so that the students know what the judge is looking for.
Round Structure
In policy debate, sides are determined by the tabulation system and the Affirmative side always goes first. PF does not follow the same structure. Each round begins with a coin toss; the winning team selects either
- The side (pro/con) they will argue
- The speaker order they will go (begin the debate or give the last speech)
NOTE: This structure means Opposition teams can speak first in a round. Proposition teams do not always go first.
NOTE: During in-person tournaments, the team that gives the first speech sits to the LEFT of the judge.
Public Forum is a debate event specifically developed to promote communication with an engaged member of the community on a current topic affecting society. As a judge, you will choose a winner and assign speaker points. Judges evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not on issues they think a particular side should have covered.
Judges should assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. The pro should prove that the resolution is true, and the con should prove that the resolution is not true. When deciding the round, judges should ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?” Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; judges should discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Plans (formalized, comprehensive proposals for implementation), counterplans and kritiks (off-topic arguments) are not allowed. Generalized, practical solutions should support a position of advocacy. Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence may strengthen – but not replace – arguments.
Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and they will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen.A team should not be penalized for failing to understand his or her opponent’s unclear arguments.
In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. Points provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative “quality of debating.” That being said, all judges come to evaluate rounds using different paradigms, so students are encouraged to ask judges their paradigms before the round begins so that the students know what the judge is looking for.
- On the ballot the judge will rank debaters 1-4 and assign speaker points; points are ranked out of 30, with the typical range being 25-30.
Time Limits of Policy Debate
Who Speaks |
Speech Title & General Purpose |
Length |
Team A Speaker 1 |
Constructive (Prepared) Speech: Presents case |
4 min |
Team B Speaker 1 |
Constructive (Prepared) Speech: Presents case |
4 min |
Between Team A Speaker 1 & Team B Speaker 1 |
CROSSFIRE #1: Speakers ask questions, clarify arguments, set up positions |
3 min |
Team A Speaker 2 |
Rebuttal Speech |
4 min |
Team B Speaker 2 |
Rebuttal Speech |
4 min |
Between Team A Speaker 2 & Team B Speaker 2 |
CROSSFIRE #2; Speakers ask questions, clarify arguments, set up positions |
3 min |
Team A Speaker 1 |
Summary (Crystallizing) Speech |
2 min |
Team B Speaker 1 |
Summary (Crystallizing) Speech |
2 min |
ALL Speakers |
GRAND CROSSFIRE: Speakers ask questions, clarify arguments, set up positions |
3 min |
Team A Speaker 2 |
Finally Focus (Voters) Speech |
2 min |
Team B Speaker 2 |
Finally Focus (Voters) Speech |
2 min |
Prep Time |
Value |
3 min |
Total Round Time (including prep used by both teams) |
39 min |