PUBLIC FORUM BEGINNERS GUIDE

Public forum debate times (in minutes)

4-constructive (1st speaker team A)

4-constructive (1st speaker team B)
3-Crossfire (both 1st speakers)
4-Rebuttal (2nd speaker team A)
4-Rebuttal (2nd speaker team B)
3-Crossfire (both 2nd speakers)
2-Summary (1st speaker team A)
2-Summary (2nd speaker team B)
3-Grand Crossfire (All debaters)
2-Final Focus (2nd speaker team A)
2-Final Focus (2d speaker team B)
Both sides have 2 minutes worth of prep time

Basic speech overview:

Constructive: Both teams read through their cases for the
other team and the judge to hear.
1st crossfire: Both first speakers get the time to ask each
other questions and try to incriminate the other team and
their case.
Rebuttals: Both teams attack the others case with
analytical or evidence-based rebuttals. The second
rebuttal speech might have counter-rebuttals in it.
2nd crossfire: Both second speakers try to incriminate the
others attacks, cases, or debaters themselves, or exploit
holes or other issues within either of the three.
Summary: Both first speakers have two minutes to cover
what they believe are the main points in the round,
including potential voter issues, attacking the other
teams case more, or anything of the like. The first
summary also includes counter-rebuttals.
Grand Crossfire: All debaters in the room are free to ask
and answer questions. All debaters must be seated
during this time. Like the first two crossfires, but usually
more heated, as the debate has almost reached its finale
and will have all main points.
Final Focus: Both second speakers close out the debate
by recapping main points of interest within the round. No
new arguments may be made, but new evidence to
support a previous argument may be brought up.

Prep Time: This is precious time for either team to use at

any time during the debate except before crossfires.
Both teams may work, even though the time will be
subtracted from the team who entered their prep time.
Prep time may be divided into sections, and does not
have to be used all at once.
Keep in mind that a judge is allowed to call prep time at
any point in the round, for any reason. If its for a bad
reason, inform your coach after the round is over. If a
judge enters prep time, no debater may do any work at
all.

How to write a case:

There are several things that you might see in a PF
debate case.
The Resolution: This is optional, but is commonly restated
at the beginning of the case. If not the resolution, then
maybe a phrase stating which side the case is for (pro
side or con side).
Framework: This has some sub-categories and is not
required:
Observations: these are as the name implies. They
are simple statements about the resolution or the
round itself, that usually can help the team using the
observation in some way or another. For instance, it
can state the burden of the other team. (The burden
is what the other team must do in the round. If the
resolution says that the pro must support one thing,
but says nothing about the con, it can be a burden of
the con to only state why the system of the pro is
bad, not to offer any other systems or counter-ideas)
Weighing Mechanisms: these are observations that
say specifically what things the judge should look for
and vote for in a round. For example, if the
resolution says ought, the standard weigh mech
would be that the judge should vote for the team
that supports the most morally correct option. They
should have evidence to support them, but don't
necessarily require evidence.

Definitions: this is the opportunity to define any

words of interest that the opponents or judge might
not know. In addition, it could potentially limit the
ground of the other team or expand the ground of
your team, by suggesting a definition of a word that
is stricter or broader than the standard.
Contentions: These are required in a case, and are the
main body of the case. A contention is an actual
argument, supporting your side of the resolution. It
usually has evidence to support it, unless it is empirical
(commonly known or common sense), and if it is
empirical, theres a good chance it could be contested
mid-round. A good contention will have 1-2 different
pieces of evidence (known as cards) and will be wellwritten, peer-edited, and logical. It will be concise and
clearly state the points and reasoning.
3 main points of a contention:
Tagline: a single short sentence summarizing the
contention. Its like a newspaper headline. It needs
to be a short, effective, claim that can be backed up
by the evidence later in the contention. It will mostly
be used by you or the opponents to refer to the
contention.
Body: like writing an essay, this is where all main
evidence will be used and cited, and the tagline is
reaffirmed and supported. This should range from a
few sentences to one or two paragraphs, but

shouldnt be much longer unless it covers a lot of

evidence.
Impacts: these are very important parts of
contentions, and basically say what the effect of
something is. For instance, if the contention talks
about a societal problem, an impact could be the
economic effects that the resolution could have on
society. However, you should make the impact
relevant to the contention.
Subpoints: these are like mini contentions. These arent
necessary, but they can be helpful from an organizational
standpoint. Subpoints are sub sections of a contention, if
the main contention is so broad that it can be broken
down into sections. Usually, if a contention must have
subpoints at all, it should have more than one, as what
would be the point of having a single subpoint?
Subpoints should include a tagline, evidence, sources,
they should be concise, and they should have impacts,
although the impacts can be listed with the main
contention, and not specifically the individual subpoint.

Heres an example of a contention:

***realize that this is a fake resolution and fake sources
and information. Any relations to persons living or dead
is purely coincidental***
Resolved: All U.S. Animal Shelters should become no-kill
shelters

Contention 1: No-kill shelters are better

(this is a broad tagline because

it has in-depth subpoints!)

Subpoint A: No-kill shelters are morally correct

(This is a deeper

tagline and a subsection of the contention)

William Joseph of the National Humane Society, in 2012, says that

killing an animal is completely wrong, regardless of the reason.
He furthers this by stating that killing an animal simply because it
was unpleasing by societal standards, a large reason of why
animals arent adopted from shelters and euthanized, is especially
wrong. He states that the euthanization of an animal for those
reasons promotes the beliefs within society that physical
attraction is the only thing that matters, which can lead to many
grave things. Psychologist Jamie Smith in 2016 says that people,
primarily children, can experience suicidal impulses, violent
outbursts, and other mental problems when such harsh standards
are set on them. Switching to No-kill shelters would help alleviate
these issues, because it would keep animals, even the ones too
old or ugly from being euthanized, reinforcing the beliefs that
everyone is attractive in their own way.

That sample subpoint would usually be followed by

another subpoint, but that single subpoint serves as an
example. The contention itself had a tagline: No-kill
shelters are better and the subpoint had a tagline: Nokill shelters are morally correct. It had evidence to back
up the claim, from the imaginary William Joseph. He also
had an imaginary title following his name, to prove that
he was a credible source and not just some hobo from the
side of the road giving his two-cents worth. In addition,
it had a date, to prove that it was recent and not
outdated. It also had an impact, stating what could

happen if society were to reinforce physical attraction

over anything. The impact had a source, which in this
instance was required, but is sometimes not. The source
was given a name, title proving credibility, and a date
proving how recent it was. To add to that, it had a nice
concluding sentence to finish it off, bringing the judge
into the argument.

A very easy method to write a contention:

Look through evidence files that your team has collected
or from credible online sites or credible books. Find a
card that says what you want it to say and summarize it
in 1-2 paragraphs. Add a source and a date. Then, make
a tagline for it. Analyze it and think of some negative
things that the argument implies. If the card itself lists
some negative things, put those as impacts. If you think
you might need evidence to back up your impacts, find
some. Then, take your newly written contentions and
compile them together into a case. Use that case to win
every round that you walk into and win some massive
trophies.