top of page

Public Forum Guide

 

Public Forum Debate is a two-versus-two debate on a current event focused topic.  The intent of the debate is different than the other two major forms of debate (namely, Lincoln-Douglas Debate and Policy Debate) in that the focus is to convince the “Everyman” you are correct.  In other words, the goal is to get the average citizen to agree with you on the issue.  So, arguments are still structured similarly to LD, but the way you approach the event is typically less technical and uses less debate specific vocabulary than either LD or Policy.

 

As an overview, Public Forum (or PF) Debates starts with a coin flip.  The coin flip determines one of two things: which team starts the debate and which team argues Affirmative or Negative.  Whoever wins the coin flip gets to choose one option – the other team choices the other.  So, one big difference from other forms of debate is you really do not know what side you will be debating until after the coin flip.  After the coin flip, the debate goes back and forth through a set structure until the judge is asked to pick a winner.  The debates last roughly 37 minutes without any classroom time modifications taken into account.

 

PF Debate is a team event and, as such, introduces some different concepts than LD Debate.  PF requires the students to learn to work with a partner and rely on each other to get through the entire debate process.  Each individual is responsible for different aspects of the debate and both need to be fully prepared to argue both sides of the debate.  Some students like the teammate aspect a great deal, since it breaks the workload down and the debates are less “scary” since they are not up in front of the class alone.  Other students find a partner…difficult, usually due to a lack of discipline and willingness to share/communicate during the preparation process.  Regardless, PF Debate is a unique form of debate which will help students learn to work together and learn about current event focused topics.

 

To start PF Debate, I would start the same way I would start LD Debate: with a former topic on the board for use in discussion.  In fact, you will find a lot of parallels for PF Debate to LD Debate, although PF Debate is not quite as technical.  When I teacher PF Debate in the classroom, it is usually after going through LD Debate and students typically see PF as “LD without the confusing stuff.”  So, realize as I move forward a great deal of the information will be similar to LD, but both events do have different focuses/purposes independent of one another.  However, the preparatory steps are similar.  The topic I start with is:

 

Resolved: Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

 

A few typical starting questions would be:

 

1.  In your own words, what does this sentence mean?

 

2.  Define all the key terms from the topic, in your own words.  How does this change the sentence? (Key terms include current, foreign policy, undermines, national security)

 

3.  Is the statement true?  Regardless of your answer, give 3 reasons why you believe what you do.

 

After giving them some time to answer, discuss the questions.  A few points to mention:

 

  • What is “current” U.S. policy?  What does that mean?  How “current” is current?

  • What is foreign policy?  What does that include?  Have students give some examples.

  • What does it mean to undermine something?

  • What is our national security?  What does that include?  Is it just our physical security or is it more?  Where do we draw the line for our security?

 

In the end, the discussion is to show that (just like in LD) there are no definite right answers.  However, there are strong opinions on both sides and strong empirical evidence to support either side.  Regardless, there are typically 2 fairly clear sides: an Affirmative side which says the sentence is true and a Negative side which will say the sentence is false.  Thus, the upcoming unit will deal with similar types of situations and each team will explore both sides of the topic.  After both sides have completed their research, a debate will take place between two teams.  In the end, a particular team will be determined the winner.

 

The topic for the MS tournaments will be determined roughly 1 month before the tournaments.  For now, I will use the PF topic from last year’s Nationals tournament.  The example topic has a great deal of resources available from multiple sources, so you can dig in deeper if you find the topic of interest.  Regardless, the topic used for discussion will be:

 

Resolved: The benefits of American drone strikes against foreign targets outweigh the harms.

 

PF Debate is best taught in context with a topic to use as a guide, so I’ll use the above topic as I break PF Debate down into easier to teach chunks.  To start with, I will focus on how to write the case, or the initial structure as to why your side of the debate is right.  Then, I will look at rebuttal preparations.  After that, I will go over the structure of PF Debate.

 

Case

 

In PF Debate, the case is the first item each side of the resolution must work on.  The structure is the exact same for both, so everyone will be working on the same thing at the same time.  The components of the case are as follows: definitions and contentions.

 

Definitions

 

Definitions are the foundation of a debate.  Without a clear understanding of what you are arguing about, you cannot definitely prove who is right and who is wrong.  The perspective you take on the topic is directly connected to how you define the topic.

 

The process I typically have students go through is simple: find the best definition for their particular side of the resolution.  A wonderful side to help with this is:

 

Onelook – http://www.onelook.com

 

OneLook is a dictionary search engine, which enables students to look at multiple dictionaries at the same time.  Words are defined in various dictionaries, ranging from general usage to specific disciplines.  Since the topic above deals with drone strikes, a general purpose or legal dictionary would offer the most topical approach.  Before we look specifically at the given topic, it might be good to reflect on how the meaning of words changes how you would proceed with viewing the topic.  Some key words to consider:

 

Benefits – What does this mean?  How does this work out when looking at the issue from the point-of-view of the entire country?

 

Drone strikes – What are these?  How many have there been?  Where are the strikes primarily located?  What is the benefit we gain from using them?

 

Outweigh – What does this mean?  What does the phrase “benefits outweigh the harms” even mean?

 

Harms – What is a harm?  What does it mean when looking from the point-of-view of the entire country?  What harms could we be talking about?  How do they hurt the U.S.?

 

Definitions are a simple place to start for all students.  Each student should gather the best definition, along with the source name for this portion of the case.  For now, students can just save the definitions to a file or print them off and turn them in as a spot check for progress.  Regardless, students will have clear definitions as they move forward with their research for their debate.

 

Contentions

 

The final part of the case is often the portion where students spend most of their time.  The reason: this portion of the case is where any evidence and analysis takes place on the concrete level.  Contention is just a debate term for reason.  Each Contention will represent an independent thought or reason why the student should win the debate.  By utilizing evidence and explaining why it connects back to the assigned topic, students can figure out the best way to address the assigned topic.

 

Each contention breaks down into three components: claim, warrant, and impact.  I will go through a process called “cutting cards,” which will give an overview of each item listed above and how it will look as a final product.  The following will also be available in handout form, for students to see as a reference.

 

“Cutting cards” is debate lingo for finding evidence and putting it into a format suitable for easy consumption for debate.  The process is really the same for any debate event, so this applies to Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, or even Policy Debate.  Here goes:

 

1.  Find an article on your topic with information you believe is pertinent/important/credible.  Students should use some common sense when considering sources, but they should be fine.  Here are some potentially good starting points:

 

Current Event focused evidence

 

  • Christian Science Monitor - http://www.csmonitor.com/ - One of the best sources for information on current events, updated daily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deeper Analysis focused evidence

 

  • Cato Institute – http://www.cato.org – The Cato Institute is a large organization with information divided by topic area. 

 

  • Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritage.org/ - The Heritage Foundation is another “think tank” organization like Cato, just on the opposite political spectrum.

 

 

  • Congressional Quarterly - http://www.cq.com – Information about Congress and what is happening in the United States.

 

 

 

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – http://plato.stanford.edu – This is a great starting point for any kind of philosophically based arguments for LD Debate.  The site offers a search engine for direct evidence from philosophers throughout the ages. 

 

 

Legal Briefs and other High Level evidence

 

Do the students have a brother/sister/friend in college who wants to let them use their login information?  Great!  Explore using Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, and/or Project Muse.  Great databases, once mastered.  Not for the faint of heart though – but invaluable once they learn to master them.

 

2.  Copy the card.  Students should read the article and find 1-2 paragraphs that give a specific point which they feel is important.  The student should include all relevant info from the article that deals with the particular issue they want to discuss.  If they feel there are multiple “cards” from a single article, no problem – just make them different cards.  Copy and paste the content into Word or the word processing program of their choice.  YES – I said copy/paste – how often have teachers recommended that?

 

3.  Make the MLA citation.  Above the 1-2 paragraphs, give a full MLA citation for the evidence.  Every single piece of evidence should have this information available.  All evidence should be from credible sources.  In a debate, the student can:

 

  • Ask for your opponent’s information

  • Discredit them for source quality, outdated evidence, or biased author attack

  • If they don’t have it, you can question the credibility entirely!

  • Regardless, you should always have the information available.

 

If the student doesn’t know how to setup a proper MLA citation, try out www.easybib.com.  Just realize the “Auto Citation” function screws up more than it works right.  Just have the students go through the process on their own…it will save them time in the long run.  Put “Author in Year writes” above the MLA citation – they will actually say that in the debate, the MLA citation is just for clarification questions.  Feel free to make it painfully small print, to save paper and make it less distracting when reading the case.  I usually go with font size 8.

 

4.  Make the claim.  What does the evidence prove in regards to the debate topic?  Students should state it in their own words.  Students should use a sentence maximum, but usually just an abridged shortened form of what your evidence talks about.  I usually describe it as a headline for a newspaper article – enough to get the general gist, but with more detail to follow.

 

For example, if the evidence is going to give statistical information on crime recidivism, the claim can be “Criminal recidivism rises/falls with rehabilitation.”

 

Short and sweet – connecting what the evidence will prove to your topic area.  This will be the first thing the student will say when talking about the point, so put it above the “Author in Year writes” and MLA citation.  I know it seems like I’m going out of order, but I’m going in the actual order I would use when cutting cards.

 

5.  Cutting the card time.  Go through the 1 – 2 paragraphs copied/pasted from the article.  Find the sentences that matter the most to the particular point being made.  Bold/Underline those words.  The rest, shrink to size 8 font.  This way, the entire original context remains intact, but the student is only reading the info that is vital to the case.  No one can accuse the student of altering the intent of the author if all of the original wording is available right in front of them.

 

6. Write your impact.  After the evidence, explain how it relates to the topic and why it matters in the round.  This is the student’s analysis on what the evidence does in the debate round.  Explain why the argument helps the Affirmative or Negative win the round.  The impact is the student’s chance to explain how you connect the dots from what the author of a paper said to what the student is arguing about during the debate.

 

The final product will follow this structure:

 

CLAIM – what you believe is true, in your own words

 

WARRANT – the proof/evidence you offer to back up your claim, composed of:

 

Author in Year writes,

 

FULL MLA CITATION

 

Copied/pasted 1-2 paragraphs from a particular article, bolding/underlining the important stuff and shrinking the rest.

 

IMPACT – why it matters in your own words, connecting the evidence to your particular debate topic.

 

Here’s an example of the entire process, from an old PF case:

 

Russia has interfered with peace around the world

 

Lantos in 2007 writes,

 

[Tom; Representative from California; “Russia on the Eve of National Elections;” Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; 30 October 2007; Lexis]

 

For reasons that are perhaps not clear, the Putin government has repeatedly shown an irresponsible attitude toward global threats to peace, especially with regard to Iran. The Russians say that they are opposed to a nuclear Iran. Indeed, Putin recently said that the two countries most threatened by an Iranian bomb would be Israel and Russia.

 

Even so, Putin insists upon fishing in these very troubled waters. He refuses to join with the civilized world in placing meaningful sanctions on Iran, and he goes so far as to sell to Iran advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

 

Putin has also hindered the United Nations efforts to preserve peace in the Balkans by resolving the final status of Kosovo. His threats to veto any UN resolution that would grant long-deserved independence to Kosovo make it unlikely that a unified international agreement will be found. If the United States and its European allies unilaterally recognize an independent Kosovo -- as I strongly support and seems most likely at this stage – Putin has threatened to recognize Abkhazia, a move likely to destabilize an already fragile situation in the Caucuses.

 

Russia is opposing the United States’ efforts to ensure that Iran remains non-nuclear.  They refuse to allow sanctions to be placed on them, despite Iran’s repeated disregard for the United States and the United Nations.  Not only that, but they also oppose an independent Kosovo – an ally of the United States.  All of these efforts show that Russia is a threat to our interests.

 

So, students can now go forth and make cards!  Cards are good for a number of reasons:

 

  • You don’t have to have the entire article with you at all times, since you have the context always.

  • You can easily see what info is from the article and what info is from you – at a glance

  • You have the citation information for easy comparison

  • You will make your judge happy, if evidence credibility is an issue – you look professional

  • You meet NFL rules – you need full citation info and you have it – in style

  • These will (eventually) form the majority of your contention level offense

  • The remainder will be for your rebuttal preparation – so everything will have a purpose

 

That concludes the case.  The case will be where students spend a great deal of time, since the end product is so critical to the actual debate.  The process is time-consuming, but worth the effort if a solid case is the end result.  However, the case is only the starting point for PF Debate.  There is one more element to discuss regarding preparations that occur prior to the debate.

 

Rebuttal Prep

 

The second step in preparing for Public Forum Debate is called Rebuttal Prep.  Rebuttal preparations are meant to help with the additional speeches in the debate.  The intent is to think about what your opponent is likely to argue in the debate and prepare your responses.

 

The preparation process is the exact same as the process described for the Contentions in the Case.  So, the students will find additional evidence and put into the same structure as the Contentions (claim, warrant, and impact) for use in the Rebuttal portions of the debate.  There is no real limit to how much rebuttal prep students should complete.  The more prepared they are, the more likely they are to win the debate.  For classroom purposes, I usually give students a minimum number of cut cards.  Typically 5-7 would be a good number to start with, although you can utilize your own judgment based on the amount of time allotted for your unit.

 

For Rebuttal Prep, the Claim is typically setup as an “Answer to” a specific argument the student expects to hear.  For example, if the student knows the Affirmative will make an argument that suggests Compulsory Immunization Saves Lives, they can find evidence that states it kills a portion of the populace as well due to weakened immune systems.  This is an “answer to” the argument because the portion of the population that dies does not feel protected from the supposed threat. In addition, the student can make arguments about those with compromised immune systems (such as HIV) who cannot take the immunizations because they will die.

 

So, Rebuttal Prep is simple in concept: you try to outthink your opponent by developing arguments which “answer” what you believe your opponent will say.  The more prepared ahead of the debate, the easier the actual in-class debate will be because the student will have that much more information and understanding of the topic on their side.

 

Structure of PF Debate

 

Now that we’ve covered the Case and Rebuttal Prep for PF Debate, let’s talk about the structure of the actual debates.  Case writing and Rebuttal Prep all come before the debate even begins.  The paperwork aspect takes quite awhile, but it also enables the students to actually debate because, without the prep work, they would know nothing about the topic itself.

 

In order to cover the structure, I will first go over the time structure and then give a breakdown of what the job of each speech is.

 

Time Structure

 

PF Debate follows the following time structure.  The time structure given is what occurs at tournaments – I will give some recommendations on modifying for classroom use later in the guide, should you need to modify due to time constrictions. Here goes:

 

NOTE: In PF Debate, you don’t actually know if the Affirmative or Negative is starting the debate.  So, for now, I’ll just say Team A is starting the debate and Team B is their opponent going second.  I’ll discuss strategy by speech type instead of Affirmative or Negative.

 

Team A Constructive, 1st Speaker                      4 minutes

 

Team B Constructive, 1st Speaker                      4 minutes

 

Crossfire (1st speakers, question/answer)          3 minutes

 

Team A Rebuttal, 2nd Speaker                           4 minutes

 

Team B Rebuttal, 2nd Speaker                           4 minutes

 

Crossfire (2nd speakers, question/answer)         3 minutes

 

Team A Summary, 1st Speaker                           2 minutes

 

Team B Summary, 1st Speaker                           2 minutes

 

Grand Crossfire (anyone, question/answer)       3 minutes

 

Team A Final Focus, 2nd Speaker                     2 minutes

 

Team B Final Focus, 2nd Speaker                     2 minutes

 

Prep Time                                                          2 minutes for EACH team

 

 

 

Speech Breakdown

 

Constructive

 

The Constructive speech is the same for both the Affirmative and Negative and it is the easiest speech in the debate: both teams simply read the Case they wrote prior to starting the actual debates.  The case should be 4 minutes in length maximum, which includes any definitions and contentions.  The time limit is strictly enforced – the student should be cut off if the time limit is reached, only able to finish their sentence if necessary.  Delivery is a bigger part of PF Debate, so students should practice reading their case beforehand and develop times to look up and connect via eye contact with the judges.  A good, strong delivery is recommended, but the substance is still the most important part of the debate at this point.

 

Crossfire

 

Crossfire works differently than Cross-Examination in LD Debate.  Crossfire starts by having both students who gave the 1st speeches stand, facing the judge.  The goal of Crossfire is to explain elements of the case asked about and to plant seeds for future arguments for their partner.  Typically, the team that spoke first gets the first question.  They ask a question and the other team answers.  Then, they ask and the other team answers.  This should go back and forth as much as possible, until the timer runs out.  If one team says they have no further questions, the other team can continue asking until the timer runs out or they run out of questions.  The time is shared though, so students should not try to hog the time or be rude – such actions tend to make the judge/teacher upset.

 

Rebuttal

 

In this speech, the goal is to attack the other team’s case.  Students should signpost throughout their speech, meaning they should tell what Contention they are arguing against.  Evidence should be utilized whenever possible, but students are also allowed to use their own arguments/justifications as needed.  The goal is to discredit or disprove the points brought up by the opposing team.  The speech is dedicated to attacking the opponent’s case though, utilizing any Rebuttal Prep, admissions during Crossfire, or other thoughts.

 

Crossfire

 

This Crossfire follows the exact same format as the first, but this time, with the 2nd pair of debaters.  They follow the same structure and ask the same type of question, although the door opens up to anything said in the debate so far.  The goal for students is to be knowledgeable and answer confidently.

 

Summary

 

At this point in the debate, the job is to look at the big picture and explain why your team is winning.  Students should strive to not read new arguments, but rely on evidence previously stated in the debate and explain why their team is winning overall.  This is the synthesis point in the debate, time for both teams to spend some time showing they understand how all the different elements interact and explain why the judge/teacher should vote Affirmative/Negative.

 

Grand Crossfire

 

The Grand Crossfire changes the format from the other Crossfires and requiring all the students to sit, facing the judge.  Either student on each team can ask or answer a question.  Some attempt should be made to balance the process, so no one student or team dominates, but the process is entirely controlled by those in the debate.

 

Final Focus

 

The final speech is dedicated to giving clear Voting Issues, explaining to the judge why the Affirmative or Negative team should win.  The speech should be focused on 1 – 2 key issues in the debate and be thoroughly explained to the judge.

 

Prep Time

 

During the debate, each team can utilize Prep Time.  Basically, a “time out” that can be utilized anytime in-between speeches.  So, a student is not allowed to call time out during their actual speech, but CAN call time out before/after each speech.  Typically, both teams use prep time before the Rebuttal speech, since it is the first time they have been able to respond to their opponent’s case.  Any remaining prep time is typically utilized before the Final Focus.  However, no time limits are imposed on HOW the prep time is utilized; each team can divide it as they wish throughout the debate.  Prep time should be timed to ensure each team receives equal prep time.

 

At this point, I’ve covered PF Case Structure, Rebuttal Prep, Time Structure, and Speech Structure.  Each component is an integral part of Public Forum Debate, but there is plenty left to cover.  So far, I’ve given an overview on how PF Debate works, with a focus on the written and spoken component.  Now, I’m going to dive into two final areas of analysis: PF Strategy and Flowing.

 

PF Strategy

 

Now that I’ve shown exactly what each speech is supposed to do, I’ll go over how that actually occurs.  The scariest part of any debate for a student is the Rebuttal portion of the debate.  Students often freeze up because they just don’t know what to say.  Now, this is where the Rebuttal Prep portion of the debate is supposed to help, but sometimes the Rebuttal Prep isn’t enough.  Therefore, a few tips are presented here to help students figure out what exactly to do during those moments in the debate.

 

Rebuttal Tips

 

Signpost – Signpost is a debate term for telling the judge and your opponent what argument you are talking about.  This is essential in debate, since there are likely 5 – 10 different arguments or things to argue about being said throughout the debate.  The easiest way to make signposting second nature is to ensure everything is labeled and you state the label throughout the debate.  When you are reading your case for the first time, you should say things like, “to clarify today’s debate, I offer the following definitions… Contention 1….Contention 2…”  Each label makes it easier for everyone involved (judge/teacher and opponent) to know what you are talking about.  So, when you get up to attack the other team’s case, tell what issue you are attacking before you start your attack.  You should say something like, “My opponent’s 1st Contention was…they are wrong because…”

 

Use evidence and explain your reasoning – Whenever possible, utilize evidence to respond to your opponent’s arguments.  Without evidence, you are just using your words to counter their words…backed by evidence.  It CAN work, but you are fighting an uphill battle.  You should have plenty of evidence for use from your Rebuttal Prep.  However, if you don’t have anything, think about your own case.  Does it have anything which directly conflicts with something your opponent said?  If so, say that!  This is called cross-applying evidence, which will now serve offensive and defensive uses in the debate.  The biggest pointer though is just to explain what you mean.  Just as in Extemporaneous Speaking, it isn’t enough just to say why you are right.  You need to explain how the evidence works, why it proves you are right/your opponent is wrong, and how it functions in the debate.  Your explanation of how things work is essential to winning the debate.

 

Connect the dots – Something many novice debaters forget to do is to connect the dots.  Everything said in the debate has to connect back to the topic.  If a debater wins a Contention, but doesn’t connect it back to the topic…that’s a reason to at least question the point in the debate.  However, the opponent needs to be the one to point the lack of connecting the dots out.  If a debate student shows they connect everything together and the opponent doesn’t, that’s a fairly easy way to vote for a particular student.  Every student should constantly be aware of how all of the pieces fit together as part of the puzzle that is the debate.  Full understanding of this concept takes time, but is very beneficial to students in the long-term.

 

Don’t forget about the definitions – Often, students forget about why they read definitions in the beginning of their case and the definitions could have helped them for an easy victory.  Let me give you an example.  The Affirmative is talking about Juveniles going to Adult prison.  They define Juvenile as anyone mentally competent over the age of 18.  The Negative gets up and reads Contentions about mentally handicapped people in prison.  An easy way out of all those attacks for the Affirmative is to look at their definition of Juvenile and say none of those arguments apply to the Affirmative case.  Now, this isn’t the only attack the student should make, but it is one which utilizes definitions and highlights why they are important in the round.

 

Flowing

 

“Flowing” is a debate term to describe a specific form of note taking common in Public Forum Debate.  You may be wondering how students are supposed to keep track of all the stuff going on during the debate.  The answer is simple: the students need to take notes.  Now, note taking isn’t the most exciting part of debate, but accurate note taking does lead to winning more debates because students can only argue against something if they remember what was being said.

 

In this section, I will give some pointers on how to take notes in PF Debate.  Realize, each individual likely will develop their own system.  There is nothing wrong with that, since the purpose of note taking is to help the student know what was being said in the debate.  However, I will give some guidelines and offer some handouts which will advocate a specific style of note taking to start with.  Some students take to the style immediately; others struggle throughout the entire unit.  The intent is always to enhance student understanding of what arguments are being made in the debate, so remember the goal as you teach note taking.

 

1.  Setup your flow sheet – The first step in note taking is setting up how you will be taking notes.  For beginners, I usually give them a blank sheet of computer paper and tell them to divide the sheet into columns.  Each column will represent a particular part of the debate.  For the front of the paper, I have students make 6 columns.  For the back of the paper, I have the students make 6 columns.

 

2.  Label your columns – Now that the paper is setup properly, it’s time to label the columns.  Since both sides of the paper are the same, it doesn’t really matter which side of the paper is which – so long as you know what side is Affirmative and what side is Negative.  For the example given, I will assume the front is Affirmative.

 

The front of the paper will start with the 1AC column, named such because all notes from the 1st Speaker, Team A’s Constructive Speech will go here.  From this point forward, everything dealing with the Affirmative Case will go on the front of the paper – including any attacks made by the Negative and responses by the Affirmative.  The rest of the columns will be labeled with their corresponding title.  In order, it goes: 1AC (1st Affirmative Constructive), 2NR (2nd Negative Rebuttal), 1AS (1st Affirmative Summary), 1NS (1st Negative Summary), 2AF (2nd Affirmative Final Focus), and 2NF (2nd Negative Final Focus).

 

The back of the paper will also be labeled, but starting with the 1NC (1st Speaker, Team B’s Constructive Speech).  All notes form the Negative Case will go here.  From this point forward, everything dealing with the Negative Case will go on the back of the paper – including any attacks made by the Affirmative and responses by the Negative.  The rest of the columns will be labeled with their corresponding title.  In order, it goes: 1NC (1st Negative Constructive), 2AR (2nd Affirmative Rebuttal), 1AS (1st Affirmative Summary), 1NS (1st Negative Summary), 2AF (2nd Affirmative Final Focus), and 2NF (2nd Negative Final Focus).

 

Now you are ready to takes notes on a debate.  Watching a PF debate beforehand or going through a practice debate while using the note sheet will help students get used to this style of note taking.  I will include a sample form on the Handout section and links to online debates on the Resources page.

 

3.  Tips for Note taking – There isn’t a right or wrong way to take notes.  However, I will offer some tips which will help standardize what is being done, in case you want to give points for note taking and ensure students are doing this part of PF Debate.

 

  • Setup headings for common items – DEF for definitions, 1 with a circle around it for Contention 1, A with a circle around it for Sub point A, etc.

  • Underline author’s name – This way you can identify what author said what visually

  • Write responses next to original argument – If your opponent attacks your Contention 1, write the response next to Contention 1….that way, you know what they said about it.  This will vertically/horizontally align everything so you can visually see what has been responded to and what has not.

 

Note taking is an essential part to debating, since it ensures you know what the opponent has stated and gives you a visual reference point to look at throughout the debate.  Note taking is a difficult task, since we are attempting to listen, think about what was said, and then use our fine motor skills to articulate what was said on paper.  The process is not easy, but will prove invaluable for students as they progress through the school system.  The same skill set can be utilized in classrooms as well as the business world.  Being able to record an accurate record of what was said is a great asset for PF Debate and I encourage you to get your students to practice throughout the unit so they can utilize their notes during their actual in-class debate.

 

Public Forum Debate Review

 

Public Forum Debate is a great debate which focuses on convincing an ordinary citizen to vote for a particular team.  The debate style is unique, forcing students to rely on a partner and explore both sides of the topic – without ever knowing what side they will argue until the flip of a coin.  I have covered the basics, but there are many additional resources to go further into the activity if you want to learn more.  I have included a few different guides available on the Resource page, along with other sites of interest.  Since we are focusing on MS PF Debate, I believe the above is a great starting point for anyone interested in debate.

 

PF – Suggested Schedule

 

As always, the following is just a suggestion.  The actual amount of time you take will depend greatly on how long your actual class period is and how many students are in your classroom.  Regardless, here is a starting point.  Handouts mentioned are in the Handouts Section and Links are in the PF Resource section.

 

Day 1 – Intro activity with provided PF topic, Introduce PF Debate,                                Assign topic/teams

 

Day 2 – Discuss Definitions, Explore/use OneLook.com,                                                Research Time

 

Day 3 – Discuss Contentions, Review “How to Cut Cards” Handout,                               Research Time

 

Day 4 – Check student cards, Review PF Case Outline structure,                                  Research Time

 

Day 5 – Discuss Flowing, Flowing Activity, Read PF Sample AFF Case,                         Research Time

 

Day 6 – Review Student Cases, Discuss Crossfire, Read PF Sample NEG Case

 

Day 7 – Practice Crossfire, Review Format of PF,                                                           Research Time

 

Day 8 – Review Student Cases,                                                                                       Research Time

 

Day 9 – PF Cases Due, Start Rebuttal Prep, Watch PF Sample Debate and Discussion

 

Day 10 – Research Time, Flowing Review, Watch PF Debate video

 

Day 11 – Research Time, Finish PF Debate video

 

Day 12 – Start PF Debates (Typically 1-2 debates per day, if following full time limits)

 

Day 13 – Continue PF Debates

 

Day 14 – PF Debates

 

Day 15 – PF Debates

 

Day 16 – PF Debates (continue until finished with all students)

 

If you are following the full PF time limits, you may want to assign multiple PF topics to your class to ensure a bit more variety of arguments and keep students from simply “borrowing” ideas from one another.  The National Forensic League has a complete list of past topics on their website, located at http://www.nationalforensicleague.org.  Simply search for “Past PF Topics” and you’ll find many you can utilize.  Some of the sources listed below offer material for a number of topics, so you will have plenty of resources.

 

If you want to modify PF times in order to make it more useful/practical for your classroom time frame, let me offer a suggestion:

 

Cut time equally – I would start with cutting 1-minute from each Crossfire.  Next, I would recommend cutting 1-minute from each of the Final Focus speeches and telling students to focus on only 1 Voting Issue each.  If that still isn’t enough time, cut 1-minute from each Constructive as a last resort.  This is about as far as I would recommend cutting PF, since the time limits get very difficult for students to complete with any more cuts.

 

PF – Handouts

 

Here are some handouts which might prove helpful while teaching PF Debate.

 

 

I have also included some items I found around the web, which might prove helpful for additional background info and other ideas for teaching PF.

 

 

 

 

PF Resource Links

 

Ayn Rand Foundation - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_debate_forum – The Ayn Rand Foundation offers analysis on PF topics.

 

Debate Central - http://debate-central.ncpa.org/understand-public-forum-debate/ - The site offers additional resources than just on PF debate, but the site offers multiple instructional resources.

 

The Great Debate - http://www.greatdebate.net/public-forum-video-training-curriculum.html - The site offers instructional videos for PF Debate.

 

New York City Urban Debate PF Site - http://www.nycudl.org/public_forum_debate.html - The site offers a great deal of resources, including curriculum, videos, and topic analysis.

 

NFLtv - http://nfltv.org/category/public-forum/ - This site offers instruction on PF, topic analysis on various PF topics, and actual final round performances from the high school national tournament.

 

PFDebate – http://www.pfdebate.com – This is a source with a great deal of analysis for different PF topics, along with instructional videos.

  
bottom of page