PF Debate Textbook.pdf

Breaking Down Barriers:

How to Debate

The Public Forum Section

Breaking Down Barriers:

How to Debate

The Public Forum Section

Table of Contents

BASIC SKILLS SECTION... Page

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

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 over the past few years:

 June 2007: "Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States."

 March 2007: "Resolved: That the quantity of credit available to American consumers should be significantly reduced."

 February 2007: "Resolved: The costs of legalized casino gambling in the United States outweigh the benefits."

 January 2007: "Resolved: That lobbyists negatively influence the legislative process in the United States."

 October 2006: "Resolved: Current immigration laws in the United States should be enforced."

 September 2006: "Resolved: That the benefits of NASA's space exploration programs justify the costs."

 June 2006: "Resolved: That the United States government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 Chapter 2

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

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

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 (evidence/reasoning/support)

3. Diversifying media provides democratic expression of political argument.

(evidence/reasoning/support)

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 (evidence/reasoning/support)

2. The Patriot Act respects people’s civil rights (evidence/reasoning/support)

3. The Patriot Act prevents general crime. (evidence/reasoning/support)

See “Support for your Case” Later in 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.

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.

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

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 prepa- ration, 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.

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

Interest supports develop your points by increasing your audience’s attention. They

also encourage people to visualize your ideas and thoughts in their minds.

EXAMPLES: Specific incidences of your subject.

EXAMPLE: Despite our technologically advanced society, everyday products are often recalled for

simple manufacturing errors. For example, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued

a recall of 2,400 multipurpose lighters, painted silver and red to resemble matchsticks that child

could operate and burn themselves.

STORIES: Detailed accounts of the experiences of others.

EXAMPLE: The Associated Press reported on May 19, 2003 that in a prank echoing Keanu

Reeves’ movie Speed, a Virginia truck driver was led to

believe that explosives rigged to his vehicle would explode if he

drove below a certain speed limit. After calling 911, the driver

was instructed to drive to a parkway that was “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.

Vivid Supports

The purpose of using

supports is to make your

speech better supported and

more interesting. Short, flat

supports fail this goal. So,

include interesting, well

developed supports.

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

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. 933.

There was a significant sex-by-gun-in-the-home interac- tion 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 confi- dence 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

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.

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

homi- cide 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 indi- vidual 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.

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.

2. CONCEALED GUNS ARE KEY TO STOP MULTIPLE-VICTIM SHOOTINGS

John Lott, visiting professor in economics at the State University of New York, April 19, 2007. THE AUSTRALIAN, p. 10.

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 right-to-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 John Lott, Visiting Professor at the State University of New York, 2006. 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

John Lott, visiting professor in economics at the State University of New York, April 19, 2007. THE AUSTRALIAN, p. 10.

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.

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-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 John Lott, Visiting Professor at the State University of New York, 2006. 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 John Lott, Visiting Professor at the State University of New York, 2006. 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

Public Forum Chapter 3

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.

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?”

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

Public Forum Chapter 4

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.

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.

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.

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.