PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE On small slip of paper

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

On small slip of paper please REGISTER: Name & school name. # of years you’ve been debating. Your goal for today & the season: Examples: more confidence SPEAKING writing better CASES researching key REBUTTALS strong SIGN POSTING & outlining preparing better FRONTLINES smarter WEIGHING

Public Forum Policy Televised political debates Parliamentary

Public Forum Policy show advantages & disads read & research answer questions on your feet Televised political debates Parliamentary

PFD Round – Opening Speeches Speaker 1 (Team 1) Case Constructive Speaker 1 (Team 2) Case Constructive CROSSFIRE

PFD Round – 2 nd 4 min speeches Refute, Extend, Rebuild Speaker 2 (Team 1) Refute Extend Speaker 2 (Team 2) Refute, Rebuild & Extend CROSSFIRE

3 rd and 4 th “Rebuttal” Speeches • • • Both of these debaters have the primary burden of refuting the other team’s arguments by analyzing and explaining flaws in the opponent’s position. The debater should identify the opposition’s key arguments and attack their legitimacy by: turning the analysis to the other side; presenting evidence that destroys or reduces the opposing position; presenting alternate causes that are not accounted for by the opposition argument; exposing argument inconsistencies between the speakers or between the opponents and their statements during crossfire. To best accomplish refutation, both members of a team should have a consistent approach and a unified view of what is important and less important. An argument format could be an introduction that links the team’s second speech to the first speech, followed by an overview of the issue, which is frequently the opponent’s argument, followed by reasons/evidence why the opponent is wrong, followed by what this argument clash now means for your side in the debate. In addition, some time in either of these speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original case. It is important to have clarity that is seldom attained by an intricate outline. Speeches should conclude with a summary.

PFD Round – 2 min. speeches Central Issues Strategy, Extend, Compare Impacts Speaker 1 (Team 1) Summary Speaker 1 (Team 2) Summary GRAND CROSSFIRE

Summary Speeches • Find a way to explain issues in light of all that has happened so far – without speaking too rapidly. • New evidence, but only new refutation arguments are allowed. For ex. , deepen 1 -2 issues from the debater’s side on resolution and 1 from the opponent’s side. • Use a brief overview. On each key argument, try a short original quote, or fact. “Ballot or bullets” “Like Samson & Delilah, UN cuts U. S. ’s strength! • Stress how each argument is important for a better world and a fairer decision (Break the tie!)

PFD Round – Review: Central Issues, Weigh & Win Speaker 2 (Team 1) Final Focus Speaker 2 (Team 2) Final Focus Shake Hands

Final Focus • Frame, with clarity, why your team has won the debate. No new arguments except refutation, only new evidence that supports an earlier argument. • To prep final focus, ask, “If I were judging this round, what would I be voting on? ” Strategies may include: – – – Choose the most important argument you are winning, and summarize the analysis and evidence that make it so important. Turn a major argument from your opponent into the winning analysis and evidence of one of your important arguments; this technique clinches two arguments. Answer the most important argument you may be losing by summarizing your analysis and evidence that takes out the opponent’s argument. Choose an argument that you believe the community judge will most likely vote on. Expose a major inconsistency made by your opponent— 2 arguments that contradict each other—where the opponent is focusing on to win the debate.

Public Forum Speech & Prep Times Speaking times: First Speaker - Team A ……………. . 4 Minutes First Speaker - Team B ……………. . 4 Minutes Crossfire ………………………. . 3 Minutes Second Speaker - Team A …………. … 4 Minutes Second Speaker - Team B ……………. 4 Minutes Crossfire ………………. . . . . 3 Minutes Summary - First Speaker - Team A ……. . 2 Minutes Summary - First Speaker - Team B………. . . 2 Minutes Grand Crossfire …………………. . 3 Minutes Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team A…. . 1 Minute Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team B……. 1 Minute Prep time…………… 2 Minutes (per team)

Might makes right. Claim • Military might morally protects the weak from evil actors. Warrant Link(s) to Impact

Might makes right. Claim Warran t Link(s) to Impact • Military might morally protects the weak from evil actors. • Union stopped slavery due to superior arms. • Bin Laden vanquished due to superior military tactics & weapons.

Might makes right. Claim Warran t • Military might morally protects the weak from evil actors. • Union stopped slavery due to superior arms. • Bin Laden vanquished due to superior military tactics & weapons. Link(s) • Might deters & prevents future evil. to • Since Bin Laden’s death, far fewer rogue Impact terrorists attack U. S.

Might makes right. REFUTATION might morally protects. might corrupts to immorality. • They say Claim • We say • NO LINK North almost lost despite their superior weapons. Warrant • LINK TURN Might corrupts because no one checks them. U. S. tortures Iraq detainees. • OUT WEIGHS Triumph of diplomacy & Link(s) to cooperative allies are greater in scale, Impact probability & outlast any temporary unilateral victory!

Art of Argumentation • Quantity of arguments < than quality. • Parts of a strong argument= claim, evidence with • • warrant, and links to an impact. A claim is a major argument made on either side of the resolution. On “Resolved: NATO countries should have acted together in Iraq, ” a claim= terrorism would’ve reduced because 1 nation wasn’t the main actor for an invasion. Experts as evidence can make the claim valid. WARRANTS connect claims & impacts to their support. Essential, they provide believable reasons why any claims + evidence are true. LINK TURN: the opposing team can counter that forcing nations (impact) ruins alliances & threatens national security BECAUSE forcing cooperation builds resentment and weakens U. S. leadership and soft power.

PF 1 st Speech/Case Constructive I. Introduction Attention Getter – also called a hook; captures interest Resolution – state resolution word for word Preview – state your main points Definitions – define all important terms in the resolution (Con gives counter-defs only if necessary) II. Body A. Main point (with sub points) B. Main point (with sub points) C. Main point (with sub points) III. Conclusion Review - Repeat Main Points Restate the Resolution Link back to the Attention Getter and bring closure

Casing Outline & Template (Attention Getter) “________________________________________________________________________________________________” Because I agree with (refer to above)______________ that I must affirm / negate the resolution. (State the resolution. ) ________(refer to your position on the res) because of two/three main reasons, first, ________, second, _________, and third, ___________.

Casing Outline & Template Before continuing I would like to define the following key terms: ------ is defined by ___________ is ________________________________________ ____________________. ------ is defined by ____________is ________________________________________ ____________________.

Casing Outline & Template (Body) First, ________________ Analysis Evidence / Example with Warrant Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant Second, _______________ Analysis Evidence / Example with Warrant Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant Third, ________________ Analysis Evidence / Example with Warrant Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant

Casing Outline & Template (Conclusion) ________(refer to your position on the res) because of two/three main reasons, first, ________, second, _________, and third, ___________. “For these reasons, you should vote affirmative/negative. I am now open for CX. ”

Casing Outline & Template Bombs or Bonds? We negate the resolution “Might makes right”. Our framework is to value lives and quality of life above economic gains. We define might as militarization and right as morally for the greatest good of all. First, ___Might corrupts_______ Analysis Evidence / Example with Warrant Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant Second, _Treaties and alliances →Rule of law and order__ Analysis Evidence / Example with Warrant Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant Prefer our impact because ( MR. T: Magnitude, Risk, Time ) It affects the most people globally, not just our own national security. When fully supported multi-laterally, it’s highly probable to work (Geneva Convention) Even if diplomacy takes time than so-called unilateral hard power solutions, rule of law endures longer.

How to read a “card. ” 1. AUTHOR LAST NAME AND YEAR. 2. KEY POINTS, STATISTICS & WARRANTS. 3. THEN SUMMARIZE & SO WHAT ●BRIEF RECAP OF CARD IN YOUR OWN WORDS. ●BRIEFLY EXPLAIN “SO WHAT? ”

More help at NYCUDLDEBATE Coaches, find lessons, briefs and evidence at debate. nyc, All can find videos, links & more help to STEP-UP your debating @ NYCUDLDEBATE (all 1 word) DR. MOT 6 kinds of refutation arguments. Tips for weighing & winning. Model debate videos. Research tips. Archive of best model cases (in progress!) Topic background resources for each new topic. Share or request more help through: Loretta@debate. nyc

Research “Card” Template PRO/CON Author Year Title, Source URL Author’s credentials QUOTE, (with before and after sentences) TAG

PRO Case Intl. Law W Rule of Law I= global stability → less war, more trade Houck 2015 CON Blocks you 1. NOT UNIQUE Rule of Law now. U. S. already follows customary rules of law. Will 2013, Groves, 2016 2. LINK TURNS: Fuels instabiity U. S. independence → its dominance & hegemony, bolsters military stability. Helps enforcement, foundation Bolton on PSI, 2007, Will, 2012 3. U. S. joining will anger China. U. S. has no land there. Fuchs, 2016 4. U. S. gets constrained on searching suspicious ships or PSI policies risk national security. Groves 2012 W credibility, veto power I= wealth creation (sea beds) Natl. security Ashfaq 2009 Environment leverage Carlson 2013 (In OVERVIEW, combine this frontline Contention 2 rebuild) FLOW ACROSS 5. WRONG impacts. U. S. Leadership Your PRO Frontline against CON UNCLOS lacks enforceability mechanism, Illusory Gerwetz 2016 1. NOT UNIQUE U. S. follows customary “UNCLOS” laws already, so is respected. Will 2012 2. NOT UNIQUE U. S. making bi-lateral environmental treaties. Brown 2011 3. NO IMPACT: vv. No enforcement means no one need obey environment rules for impacts. Liza 2016 1. CONTRADICTS: If it weakens sovereignty, why is U. S. following all UNCLOS regs now, just not as a party to treaty? 2. TURN UNCLOS extends & protects sovereignty in EEZ Graser 2016 3. Bilateral treaties not enough for security or environment Brown 2011 3. WRONG U. S. as imperialist hegemon in Iraq a disaster. Pincus 2012 Overview: US is key to making UNCLOS valid, brings leverage for better environment, fishing and mining profits 1. WRONG UNCLOS and world stability not working sufficiently now because U. S. is not a party. U. S. is mistrusted. Needs U. S. leadership to bolster and give it validity. Patrick 2012 Ex. helping sway China and SCS. Kuok 2018

FLOW the ARGUMENTS! PRO CASE Intl. Law W Rule of Law I= global stability → less war, more trade Houck 2015 U. S. Leadership W credibility, veto power I= wealth creation (sea beds) Natl. security Ashfaq 2009 Environment leverage Carlson 2013 CON Blocks Your PRO Frontline against CON

CON CASE Sovereignty lost. W controlled by others on rights Lose search rights of suspicious ships I = instability, natl. sec. & econ. ↓ Groves 2012 Economic losses W royalties I= Redistribute wealth Socialism Groves 2012 Lawsuits W happen now I= expensive and costly Groves 2012 PRO Blocks Con CON Frontline to Pro