Public Forum Debate Structure
Every weekend during the debate season, thousands of public forum teams across the country attend competitive tournaments and participate in debate rounds. Each round features two teams of two competitors—one affirming the resolution (Pro) and the other negating it (Con). We have already discussed the basics of monthly resolutions published by the National Speech and Debate Association and tournaments in the previous article. Now, we will cover the basic structure of PF.
What Are the Speeches For Public Forum Debate?
Each PF debate round lasts roughly 45 minutes and has a set speech order with time limits. An important note is that either the Pro or Con team can begin the round. You can visualize the flow of the debate below:
.avif)
We recommend you memorize the speech structure. In total, the rounds take approximately 45 minutes. Assuming the Pro team goes first, the format is as follows:
.svg){kind=icon}
Speaker Giving Speech: First speaker of the Pro team.
Purpose of Speech: Constructive speeches are the first one in every public forum round. The Pro team presents a pre-prepared “case” that argues why the judge should vote to uphold the resolution. Cases outline the best argument in support of the Pro team’s side.
Speaker Giving Speech: First speaker of the Con team.
Purpose of Speech: The second constructive speech is much like the first. The Con team presents a pre-prepared speech outlining their best arguments as to why the judge should oppose the resolution. It does not include a rebuttal to the first constructive argument.
Speakers: Both first speakers
Purpose of Crossfire: Unlike constructive speeches, crossfire allows for direct engagement between the two first speakers. Both sides ask each other questions to poke holes in arguments or get clarification on a point the other side made.
Speaker Giving Speech: Second speaker of the Pro team.
Purpose of Speech: The first rebuttal is the main opportunity for the Pro team to attack the Con’s arguments made in the Con’s constructive. Because the Pro team would not know what the Con was going to argue before the round, this speech is largely impromptu. However, most teams have pre-prepared responses to common arguments on the topic, called “blocks.”
Speaker Giving Speech: Second speaker of the Con team.
Purpose of Speech: The second rebuttal is one of the most challenging speeches in the round. Similar to the first rebuttal, the speaker will attack the opposing sides constructive. In addition, they will also respond to the attacks levied by the opposing team’s speaker in the first rebuttal.
Speakers: Both second speakers
Purpose of Crossfire: The second crossfire is between the teams’ second speakers. Similar in structure to the first crossfire, this questioning period tends to focus on what the teams see as the major issues in the round.
Speakers: First speaker of the Pro team.
Purpose of Speech: Unlike the constructive and rebuttal speeches which add content to the round, the summaries begin to focus the debate on a team’s most important argument. In other words, teams begin to “collapse” onto their most favored points.
Speakers: First speaker of the Con team.
Purpose of Speech: The second summary mirrors the first, with the added benefit that the first summary has already narrowed the scope of the round. In this speech, the speaker is drilling down on the points they think they are winning and explaining why they matter more than the Pro team’s arguments. In debate, this concept is known as “weighing.”
Speakers: All speakers
Purpose of Crossfire: The grand crossfire is the only time in the round when all four debaters have an opportunity to engage each other at the same time. Usually, the three minutes are focused on the one or two preeminent arguments in the round or the areas where teams disagree the most, known as “clash.”
Speakers: Second speaker of the Pro team.
Purpose of Speech: As the name suggests, this is the last time the judge will hear from the Pro side. The second speaker boils down their arguments and explains why they are more important than the Con’s. No new arguments are allowed in this speech.
Speakers: Second speaker of the Con team.
Purpose of Speech: This is the final speech of the round. Con’s second speaker will make the final case to the judge. The second final focus’s structure mirrors the first, however, some debaters place more of an emphasis on weighing.
Speakers: All debaters
Purpose of Prep Time: Outside of constructive, all PF speeches are impromptu. Therefore each team has three minutes of prep time to use as they see fit. Most teams will use some before rebuttal, summary, and final focus. During this period competitors write out speeches, talk to their partners, and strategize their next move.
Does the Pro or Con Side Start the Debate?
Before every debate, students flip a coin. The winner can choose which side of the resolution they would like to debate, or they can choose to speak first or second in a round. The best teams are well prepared to debate either side of the resolution. Therefore, teams who win the coin flip usually choose second so they have the last word.
Example Debate
Now, let’s walk through an actual debate round to see the structure in action. For this round, let’s assume Team A won the coin flip and decided to be Con while Team B chose to speak second.
The topic is, Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership on its Security Council.
Constructive 1
In the first constructive, the negative began with background on the topic and decided to go with one argument: the United Nations Security Council preserves peace.
Constructive 2
In the second constructive, the Pro team takes a different strategy presenting two arguments, one centered on African nations and the second on genocide.
Crossfire 1
In the first crossfire, both competitors discussed each other's cases and looked to poke holes in each other’s arguments.
Rebuttal 1
In the first rebuttal, the negative team attacked their opponent's case through new pieces of evidence along with the arguments of their own case.
Rebuttal 2
Much like the first rebuttal, the speaker attacked the opponent’s case. However, he also rebuilt his own case.
Crossfire 2
The second crossfire followed a similar structure to the first. In this one, teams are beginning to focus their questions on what they view as the most important issues in the round.
Summary 1
In the first summary, the speaker uses a strategy of comparing the two words and explaining why the arguments they are winning matter more than their opponents.
Summary 2
The second summary followed a similar structure as the first, however, they also responded to what was said in the first summary.
Grand Crossfire
The grand crossfire is the last time teams get to have direct interaction. The grand crossfire tends to focus on what teams honed in on during summary, this happens in the example round.
Final Focus 1
In the first final focus, the negative team explained why their arguments were more important. This is in contrast to rebuttal where the negative placed attacks on each individual argument but didn’t spend a lot of their time telling the judge which one was the most important.
Final Focus 2
The second final focus is the last speech in the round. The affirmative speaker began with a short one-liner followed by weighing.
What's Next
Now that we have a grasp on the structure of Public Forum debate it’s time to dive into specific speeches, beginning with the constructive.
.svg)