JUDGING PUBLIC FORUM
GOALS
1. THE BASICS OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE
THE BASICS OF A PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE
In Varsity there IS a FLIP, and AFF or Neg could speak first
- There are four 4-minute Constructives (One constructive and one rebuttal for each team)
- Each pair of Constructive speeches is followed by a 3-minute Crossfire.
- There are then two 3-minute Summary speeches.
- There are two 2 minute Final Focus speeches
- Debaters have 3 total minutes of Prep Time to use before speeches.
SPEECH ORDER | TIMING: |
1st team Constructive | 4 min |
2nd team Constructive | 4 min |
Crossfire (1st 2 speakers) | 3 min |
1st team Rebuttal | 4 min |
2nd team Rebuttal | 4 min |
Crossfire (2nd 2 speakers) | 3 min |
1st team Summary | 3 min |
2nd team Summary | 3 min |
GRAND CROSSFIRE (all 4 speakers) | 3 min |
1st team Final Focus | 2 min |
2nd team Final Focus | 2 min |
| |
THE BASICS OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE: TWO JUDGE DUTIES
BE A CREATOR OF COMMUNITY
During �the Round
After �the Round
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A JUDGE
Head to the room number indicated on your text
Open your ballot and press “Start Round”
Before�the Round
2. HOW TO CHOOSE A WINNER
THE RESOLUTION
THE TEAMS
Affirmative: For the resolution!
Negative: Against the resolution!
ONLINE DEBATE!
Second Affirmative
First Affirmative
Second Negative
First Negative
Judge
Judge
Judge
Here is a screen shot from a recent online debate held by SVUDL and their partners.
The zoom room has become a classroom!
You can have students label their “names” by their last name and speech order to make judging easier.
HOW TO CHOOSE A WINNER:�THE AFFIRMATIVE BURDEN OF PROOF
The affirmative usually has the burden to prove the resolution is true, or advantageous. NEITHER TEAM should offer a formal plan or counterplan. SOME resolutions have a built in plan (example Medicare for All act of 2019), some are merely statements of contested fact
HOW TO CHOOSE A WINNER: THE NEGATIVE BURDEN OF REJOINDER
What to Consider
What Not to Consider
DETERMINING A WINNER
COMMON HABITS IN NEW DEBATERS
DEVELOPING PRESENTATION SKILLS
PAUSING WHILE SPEAKING
STOPPING EARLY
LOOKING AT OPPONENT’S EVIDENCE
UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHOSE TURN IT IS
MORE EXPERIENCED DEBATERS
SPEAK FASTER
USE TERMINOLOGY FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
MAY RUN OUT OF TIME
MAY BE MORE COMPETITIVE WITH ONE ANOTHER
4. HOW TO FILL OUT A BALLOT
HOW TO FILL OUT A BALLOT
HOW TO FILL OUT A BALLOT
HOW TO FILL OUT A BALLOT
HOW TO FILL OUT A BALLOT
WRITING A REASON FOR DECISION (RFD)
Strong RFD
Weak RFD
EXAMPLE RFD
I vote Neg in this debate because they won a significant risk of the Elections Disadvantage. They won that Trump would use criminal justice reform to win undecided voters in swing states, tipping the election. This would have dire consequences, as a second Trump term would make it impossible to address global warming.
The aff won that passing their body cameras reform would enhance police accountability and decrease police violence towards minority communities., but I felt the magnitude of the disadvantage outweighed the case impact.
The affirmative could have won the debate if they demonstrated that the probability of a Trump victory was lower than the Negative argued. They also could have won if they demonstrated that decreasing police brutality against minority communities ought to take precedence over hypothetical future climate impacts.
POSITIVE FRAMING…