1. Public Forum Debate

2. 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

3. Televised political debates
Public Forum
Policy
Televised political debates
Parliamentary

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

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

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

7. 3rd and 4th “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.

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

9. 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!)

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

11. 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.

12. 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 …………………………… Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team A ……..…..2 Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team B……… 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)

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

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

15. Might makes right.
Claim
Military might morally protects the weak from evil actors.
Warrant
Union stopped slavery due to superior arms.
Bin Laden vanquished due to superior military tactics & weapons.
Link(s) to Impact
Might deters & prevents future evil.
Since Bin Laden’s death, far fewer rogue terrorists attack U.S.

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

17. 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.

18. PF 1st 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  

19. 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, ______________________.

20. Casing Outline & Template
Before continuing I would like to define the following key terms: is defined by _____________________ is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ is defined by ________________________is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

21. Casing Outline & Template
(Body)
First, _______________________________
Analysis
Evidence / Example with Warrant
Impact to value/ Link(s) & Warrant
Second, _____________________________
Third, _______________________________

22. 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.”

23. 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__
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.

24. How to read a “card.” Author last name and year.
Key points, statistics & warrants.
Then summarize & SO what
●Brief recap of card
in your own words.
●briefly explain
“So What?”

25. More help at NYCUDLDEBATE
Coaches, find lessons, briefs and evidence at debate.nyc, All can find videos, links & more help to STEP-UP your 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:

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

27. FLOW ACROSS PRO Case CON Blocks you Your PRO Frontline against CON
Intl. Law
W Rule of Law
I= global stability →
less war, more trade
Houck 2015
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
5.WRONG UNCLOS lacks enforceability mechanism, Illusory impacts Gerwetz 2016
(In OVERVIEW, combine this frontline Contention 2 rebuild)
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
U.S. Leadership
W credibility, veto power
I= wealth creation (sea beds)
Natl. security
Ashfaq 2009
Environment leverage
Carlson 2013
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: vvNo enforcement means no one need obey environment rules for impacts Liza 2016
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 ACROSS

28. FLOW the ARGUMENTS! PRO CASE CON Blocks You against CON Intl. Law
Your PRO Frontline
against CON
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

29. CON CASE
PRO Blocks
Con
CON Frontline
to Pro
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

30. Congratulations! You’Re Already smarter & more confident!!

31. TAKE AWAYS from TODAY! Something I’ll use is… because…
Something I’ll teach my team
is… because…
I’m still confused/ wondering about…