Philosophies of Public Forum
The NSDA provides a concise version of what should constitute Public Forum debate: “In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery.” (National Forensic League Guide to Public Forum Debate) Sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery are critical to a good debate. Each of these skills will be covered on a speech-by-speech basis throughout the Dialogy Public Forum Guide. But beyond a discussion of specific skills, we believe it is important to lay a foundation of ideas that drive effective debating.
This foundation we call our Public Forum Philosophies. It is important to never be mired in a checklist of things one must do to win a debate. There are broader, more fundamental things at work in winning teams. A few of the most important are as follows:
Knowing and Saying vs. Communicating Persuasively
The best debaters are well researched, but the best researchers are not inherently the best debaters. Debate requires persuasive communication. There is never one way of saying something. For example, if I were to read off statistics about a recent upswing in crime, I would simply tell you the information. If I recited the source and then summarized the evidence in my own words, perhaps even providing my own analysis, I could communicate the information persuasively. Another example would be reciting a statistic that the national GDP would increase by 3% if the resolution’s policy took place. On the other hand, I could explain that a 3% increase in GDP would create X number of jobs, or decrease unemployment by X%, or that would be the equivalent of the budget of X department. These two examples are meant to point out that persuasion occurs in HOW you present information. Presenting the information is not enough to be persuasive – it is what you do with the information that persuades. Delivery and content (diction, anecdotes, examples, analogies, sentence structure, organization, etc.) bring a debater from simply “knowing and saying” his or her arguments to communicating persuasively. The tools of persuasive communication will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Tell the judge what to think about and how to think about it.
One thing that every debater is equally skilled at is judge blaming. Debaters say that the judge didn’t listen, didn’t flow, had the wrong political slant, was a “mom” judge, was a “policy” judge, was texting, or perhaps was wearing the wrong color of shirt. Whatever the reason, judge blaming ignores the critical problem of a debater’s responsibility. I believe this comes from a fundamental mistake that many debaters make. We are taught to tell the judge WHAT they are supposed to think about – what arguments, what evidence, what examples, what action. What we struggle with, is telling the judge HOW to think about this information. HOW prioritizes conflicting issues in the round. HOW provides the judge a way understand arguments on both sides of the debate and still select a winner. Most importantly, HOW gives you, the debater, the ability to instruct the judge on who is winning, rather than hope he or she sees things as you do. We want to be debaters that provide the judge the WHAT and the HOW. The tools to discuss “HOW” are Framework and Impact Calculus, both discussed later in the book.
Debate in a Funnel – The inverted triangle approach to debating.
Words like “crystallize” and “boil down” are often thrown around in Summary and Final Focus speeches. Debaters that actually cut down the information in the round are much harder to come by. Think of the first two speeches of the round, the Case and Rebuttal speeches, as laying all the main information on the table. After this point in the round, arguments should not substantially expand. This doesn’t mean that you can’t bring up new evidence to refute a claim your opponents brought up in rebuttal. This does mean that no new major examples, arguments, responses, or areas of conflict should be brought up after the rebuttal. This is both a challenge for the first two speeches to introduce the important information as well as a challenge for the later speeches to narrow the focus of the round. The funnel method works because you’re taking from the information previously presented and cutting it down to the core issues that are both essential to the resolution and essential to your side winning the debate. Specifics about how to funnel will be discussed in the chapters on the Second Half, Summary, and Final Focus.
Debate like the win is in your hands.
If you were to think of the win as a water bottle or pen on your desk, you’re figuratively challenging your opponent to come and take it from you. Debating with the win means you debate with confidence that the round is yours, not arrogance. Debating with the win means challenging your opponent with confidence. Be the challenger, not the challenged.
Make your opponents work.
Answer all the opposing arguments. Make your opponents defend their evidence. Don’t let an attack on logic go unanswered. Bring out your best arguments, best evidence, and best speaking ability. Never make it easy for your opponents to win.
Debate because it’s fun.
The only way to truly enjoy debating, whether you are winning or losing, is to have fun. Debate can be the most exhilarating, challenging, and enjoyable thing you do in school if you don’t dwell on your losses. Debate is fun, so don’t forget it as you get caught up in stress, anxiety, and hard work. Strike a balance between competing and enjoying your time debating.
