PublicFormula

PF Preparation
By: Christian Chessman

Preparation is what makes or breaks a Public Forum team. While there are several more subtle factors, the driving force behind victory in any round is the amount of knowledge. Rounds are won and lost by the ability of each team to take what knowledge they have and put it into effective use to persuade the judge. Therefore, preparation is critical to a round. But that begs the question; How can I prepare?

Evidence is key to Public Forum Debate. It is used to validate arguments, defeat opposing points, and ultimately persuade the judge. However, there are a number of types of evidence that can be used.

The Role of Empirical Evidence
The word “empirical” means “Based on experience, experimentation or observation, rather than systematic logic”. Studies, polls, statistics, and graphs are all examples of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is the main type of evidence your case will use. It is most easily understood by lay judges, and is often more persuasive than logical syllogisms, which can be difficult to follow. You should include a good amount of evidence in your case – every time you make a claim, unless it is common sense, you should have proof of this claim. This makes your case exponentially stronger, because it stops opponents from picking at the premises behind your argument, and increases the validity of your argument in the judge’s eyes.

You must also always keep in mind that the recency of a source plays a factor. If you have a statistic from the United States’ foreign policy with Russia from 1976, the validity of your argument will probably be compromised – the United States’ foreign policy towards Russia has greatly changed since the Cold War. Most examples of an obsolete source won’t be as clear cut, you must always be careful to watch for them, both in your case and your opponents. Do not attack recency, however, unless it makes a critical difference. Recency is a very hard argument to prove, and if that is the basis of your refutation for your opponent, you may lose.

Some teams may also try to attack where your sources come from. This is seen as bad form by nearly all judges, and should only be done in extreme situations. For example, if your opponent cites Wikipedia, it is fair to attack that. If you face an opponent who attempts to indict you based on sources, ask them if they have any reason to disbelieve yours is valid. Unless there is a reason (such as citing Wikipedia), they will not have any, and you will be able to continue debate.

There are also cases in which legitimate sources conflict. If Team A has a poll saying that 50 percent of lobbyists are corrupt, and Team B has a poll saying that 1 percent of lobbyists are corrupt, what happens? The debate can either degrade into an argument over whose source is better (which is never good, and often frustrates judges), or you can admit to hitting a “block”. A block is where both teams have good information that conflicts. While one is obviously wrong – there cannot be two simultaneously true conflicting realities – there is no way to truly determine that for the round. To progress debate, you should look to your opponent and say some variation of, “We both have good information that is conflicting. We cannot progress debate any further on this, and so I’m going to move us on. Are you aware….” And transition into your next question. This allows you to be seen as interested in the actual debate, and not just winning, as well as allowing you to hit on other key points. Be wary of “moving on” too early though. If there is more for you to debate on a subject, and you “move on” it will appear that you have conceded the point, and so you are trying to redirect the judge’s attention. Only move on when there is nothing left to debate, and this is seen clearly by the judge.

Pre-Planned Questions

Cross-Examination can make or break a close round, and can put the final nail in the coffin of an easy one. Therefore, you utilize this resource to its fullest degree. For more on Cross-Examination, read Tip the Scales in Cross-X by Jessica Bentz.

Here, we are specifically addressing the planning of questions for Cross-Examination. You should have a list of questions no less than four no more than ten (its not time-effective to write more than that). Each question should be structured to achieve a specific purpose. It should address a powerful flaw in your opponents side, or it could be used to set the path for a further contention that you’re going to reveal later.

Its alright to not use these questions, because you’ll often get caught up in answering questions about your case, and attacking the specifics of their case, but its critical to have some questions, in case you find that you have nothing else to ask.

Event Cross-Over Conventions

Debaters in Lincoln Douglas and Policy may choose to utilize such arguments as the Kritik, the off case or the disadvantage. Such forms of argumentation may not be carried over into a Public Forum Round. They are specifically banned from Public Forum in the National Forensic League Guidelines.

For the many that cross over from Lincoln-Douglas, a value and criterion may still exist, but should never ever be stated explicitly. For example, in the topic, “Resolved: That Civil Disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice”, justice would be what you’re trying to achieve (your value) but you would never explicitly state that. If it helps you to still view it in a value-criterion scale, you may choose to do so, but be aware that this is not traditional to Public Forum Debate, and should not be something you build your case around.

Fine Tuning the Speech

Once you’ve finished writing your speech, you need to fine tune it. There are several aspects to this.

First, read your speech aloud. While reading it aloud, time it, and see if you need to cut it down to remain within the limited time you’re given. A First Speaker’s speech should be about 3 minutes and 50 seconds long – this allows you to have some small amount of flex-time, in case you need to slow down, or pause. A Second Speaker’s speech should be between 2 minutes 30 seconds and 3 minutes long. This allows you to include new points, as well as a good amount of refutation in your speech, as well as the rebuilding of your case – addressing attacks on your case by your opponent.

While reading your speech aloud, look for parts that do not flow, or that are difficult to read. You’ll often find that what you’ve written sounds very different when read aloud. Therefore, read it over, and make modifications as necessary to your case.

A beneficial side effect of reading and re-reading your case for flaws is that you’ll come to memorize parts of your speech. This allows you to make eye contact with your judge, an important part of Public Forum.

Finally, once you’ve gone over your case several times and fixed it up, send it out. Give it to your coach, your partner, your friends who do Public Forum, and any other person who has experience with Public Forum Debate. Ask them if the arguments seem reasonable, and if there are any problems they view with the case. Often, your friends will provide unique or differing insights on your case that you may not have seen, allowing you to prepare for the unexpected. Once you’ve made all the content revisions, you can re-read and time the speech again. Then, once you’ve covered all that, you’re done.

Practice Rounds

This is probably one of the most important aspects to preparing for Public Forum. Once you’ve fine tuned your case, get together with your partner and other Public Forum teams at your school, and run mock Rounds. This gives you an in-round perspective on your case – does it hold against their refutation? It also gives you insights on what other people are running, and allows you to consider how you would refute them. It also gives you experience in doing actual debate as well.

Continued in Part 3 – Writing Your Speech