The Debate Experience-Policy Debate VS. Public Forum

By: Pramesh Karthikeyan & Arnav Dixit

As this year’s debate season comes to an end, there are quite a few significant takeaways that have come from online competitions. Due to the persistence of COVID 19 throughout the nation, all of the major Speech and Debate tournaments this season have been held online on various different platforms such as NSDA (National Speech and Debate Association) Campus, and Zoom. While Speech and Debate may feel like more of an isolated extracurricular activity due to the inabilities for competitions and team meetings to be held in-person, the rewarding experiences of Speech and Debate associated with the intricacies in argumentation and the ability to learn about the world around us haven’t vanished with the emergence of the pandemic.

There are many types of speech and debate, but in this blog Inspirante Education will be going over two specific types of debate, Public Forum and Policy debate.

Competing in Policy Debate, rounds can be strenuous especially when competing at home with limited social interaction with others. Policy Debate is a four-person debate event where two teams of two debaters face each other. One team affirms a given resolution statement (which essentially acts as the topic for debate) and the other team negates. Policy Debate rounds are two hours, which may seem especially strenuous online as there are minimal breaks between rounds. However, speaking times are evenly divided per debater, minimizing stress during rounds. There are a variety of arguments run in Policy Debate.

Transitioning from Lincoln Douglas to Policy Debate, the types of argumentation have mostly remained similar. However, the additional emphasis on running kritiks, arguments that use philosophical ideas to critique the mindset in the argumentation of the other team, has further intrigued me into the event. Philosophical arguments can change our views on social events that are occurring in the world. The utilization of kritiks allows for arguments to connect philosophy and the real world, which is critical to truly gaining a better understanding of what is happening in the world around us. Policy Debate also implements arguments that put forth specific policies that correspond to either an affirmative or negative stance towards the resolution. For example, to affirm the resolution that “States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals,” one might put forth a policy that says, “The United States ought to develop their nuclear arsenals” to affirm the resolution, obviously backing their policy up with evidence and real-world examples. The combination of philosophical arguments and policy implementation-styled arguments bring about a variety of argumentation which allows the debater to understand how they can adopt certain philosophies in their way of life while understanding the real world to a greater degree.

Another event is called Public Forum which is a type of debate similar to Policy with two people per team against another two person team. It is once again very similar in structure with a set resolution given at the beginning of the debate. One team affirms a given resolution statement (which essentially acts as the topic for debate) and the other team negates. Like policy debate, speaking times are evenly divided per debater. The structure is very much different though. It does not follow the two hour structure, and follows a more concise and quick process. This also allows more rounds as public tournaments might have upto 7 rounds as where Policy debate might have only 4 in a tournament.

The structure of Public Forum follows this:

1. The first speaker on team A- Speaks for 4 minutes
2. The first speaker on team B- Speaks for 4 minutes
3. Then, the crossfire- Questioning period in which the first speakers question each other(3 minutes)
4. The second speaker on team A- Summary, speaks for 4 minutes, about opponent’s case
5. The second speaker on team B
6. Speaks for 4 minutes, about opponent’s case
7. Then, the second crossfire- Questioning period in which the second speakers question each other (3 minutes)
8. Team A first speaker gives a summary also called the final focus (2 minutes)
9. Team B first speaker gives their summary

This type of debate is mostly constructive and is one of the most traditional forms of debate. Each partner on either team has a different role in that their first speaker goes down the case and somewhat extends their argument. The second speaker’s role is to cement the argument and create a strong case throughout and at the end of the debate. By doing both of these techniques, this allows the debate to have a sound structure as well as make it as organized as possible. This type of debate for the most part is rather quick and employs dozens of persuasive tools and techniques. One of the most heavily used techniques I’ve noticed as a debater and watching other debates is the ability to turn evidence against an opponent. By creating an affirmative and negation case, most of the time opponents have the same evidence or at least the same structure. By doing so you can go through the evidence and find flaws. During a debate this can be subtly pointed to by “calling for a card,” which basically means to call for the evidence. But the placement of this evidence is key as you don’t want to give your cards away, so you subtly place it as a speech or go all in during cross fire. Another technique as a debater I’ve employed as a debater and have watched, is to create hypotheticals. These techniques clarify our argument and can be used as an easy way to digest complex issues like nuclear arms use and diplomatic relations. This technique can also be used to show the judge how ridiculous an opponent’s case might be. It also shows how feasible their solution might be in their case. It’s important to recognize that the judge is also human, so they may not understand our cases and sometimes are completely new to the topic, so by showing examples and hypothetical scenarios they help structure the case for yourself and for the judge. Debate is all about persuasion and knowing your case through and through, and by doing this you can almost guarantee wins and success at tournaments

Still not entirely sure if Debate will be interesting? The social aspects of Debate aren’t entirely out of frame. As COVID cases are on a decline, debate tournaments are soon to be in-person again, allowing for competitors to meet each other again. Both the writers of this blog have experienced this type of online debate. Most of these tournaments are out of state tournaments so that means early start times for rounds and this can be a hassle. Nonetheless, debate is an amazing experience, the place that they hold tourneys is a great place to explore and really bond with the rest of the team. Debate is a great place to hone in on your skills as well, it will give you confidence to speak in public. It also allows you to articulate your thoughts and give retrospection on things to work on. Some things both of the writers of this blog worked on is the ability to be an excellent debater: whether it was the right amount of preparation, or how to successfully win a debate. It’s about the experiences, and debate is a wonderful place to do that.