In other debate events, resolutions have a specific set of burdens attached to them; affirmative teams often must win a specific set of arguments to prove the resolution true. For example, in Policy Debate, affirmative teams must demonstrate that a problem exists, offer a plan to solve the problem, and prove that their plan actually addresses the harms of the status quo. Each resolution in Policy Debate is open to some degree of interpretation, but affirmative teams must still meet these basic requirements.
Public Forum resolutions, by contrast, do not have a predetermined set of burdens accompanying them. The burdens for the affirmative and negative teams will change with each topic. As a result, Public Forum debaters have to treat each resolution independently to determine its burdens and begin research and case construction.
The resolution also serves as the focal point of the debate; at the end of the round, the judge will make their decision based on the two teams’ effectiveness at debating about the resolution. In other debate events, the resolution may be eclipsed by broader questions of fairness or social advocacy, but in Public Forum, the resolution is the ultimate mechanism for determining the winner. A debater’s technical proficiency, eloquence, and poise are all for naught if they do not adequately address the resolution. This is distinct from Congressional Debate, where a speaker may “win” the round simply by being a better debater. Consequently, analyzing the resolution is one of the most powerful tools that Public Forum debaters have to increase their chances of winning.