Every Public Forum case should have an introduction that frames and defines the resolution, then one or more contentions that argue for the team’s position, followed by a conclusion.
Introduction
Every speech needs an introduction or a simple opening to the case. The introduction will define the terms for the debate and establish the burdens for the round. A Public Forum introduction should be brief, between 30 and 45 seconds, but should persuasively accomplish the following:
Frame the round. The first task is to invoke the major issues of the resolution and lay the groundwork for the debate to come. Many debaters utilize a quotation to help with such framing. The quotation should come from a heavily qualified or easily recognizable source and should be primarily rhetorical as opposed to data-driven.
State the argument. After the debater reads the quotation, they should establish their agreement with the quotation and clarify their side of the debate: affirmative or negative. This may be accomplished by simply saying “My partner and I agree with this quotation, so we affirm the resolution.” While this seems obvious, speakers should take every opportunity to reinforce their basic advocacy to the judge.
State the resolution. The first speaking team should state the resolution. Many judges in Public Forum Debate will not have a formal connection to the debate community; they may not even be aware of what the resolution is before judging their first round. Unless the speaker restates the resolution, a judge may be completely confused. The second-speaking team does not need to restate the resolution.
Define key terms in the resolution. Debaters should offer definitions both for clarity and for strategy. A definition offered for clarity will detail, in very simple terms, the meaning of a key but potentially unclear term in the resolution. Given the resolution, “Resolved: The United States should encourage the implementation of a soft partition of Iraq,” a debater would define a “soft partition,” since the judge is unlikely to be familiar with the term. Sometimes a definition is offered to further a strategy. In these instances, the definition will give greater impact to the arguments that will follow it. For example, on the topic, “Resolved: Russia has become a threat to U.S. interests,” how each side defines “threat” could have implications for the rest of the debate. Is the ability to harm U.S. interests enough to constitute a threat or must there also be intent to harm U.S. interests? When defining terms for strategy, debaters should keep in mind that judges rarely enjoy lengthy discussions about the terms of the resolution. To ensure that the debate does not devolve into clash over definitions, debaters should make certain that their definitions allow a fair division of ground for both sides. “Division of ground” refers to the arguments that each side could make given the definitions of the resolution. On the previous Russian resolution, if the affirmative were to define “threat