TOPIC GUIDES
Use the following topic guides to help you prepare for the forum debates. You will be assigned to ONE of the following topics:
HERE: Universal Health Care will bring more benefits than harms if implemented in America?
HERE: There should be a federal policy or law that sets guidelines for Paid Time Off?
HERE: Implementing sustainable energy will ultimately end the Food and Resource Crisis.
*Competitors will receive an email about their assigned topic
Rules & Overview
The Public Forum debates in the SBLS World Economic Forum event can consist of 4-6 people with 2-3 people on each side. Please note that there will be 4 speeches for the debate so based on the amount of people on your team, either 1 or 2 people will have to speak twice. Additionally, a team of two CAN go against a team of 3. Typically, Public Forum debates have 2 speakers on each side but to better fit the format of SBLS, we will allow for the option to have 3 speakers.
There is also an option to debate solo, but you will have to do all four speeches alone.
Tips for Success
Always speak confidently
The World Economic Forum panel is not a casual debate so remember to use appropriate, professional language. Any ad hominem attack or disrespect will NOT be tolerated.
Do your research! The most successful students are the ones who prepare and feel confident beforehand. For these panels, you are required to represent your stance, company/position thus it is important to know your standpoint extremely well. You will need to have data and evidence to back up every point you make in order for it to be a valid argument.
Consider mentioning the impact in your speeches. How does the solution that your side is debating for better impact humanity? How does the opposition's case negatively impact humanity?
Debate Structure
Constructive (4 minutes per speaker)
Team FOR Speaker 1- Prepared Constructive Speech
Team AGAINST Speaker 1- Prepared Constructive Speech
CROSS FIRE ONLY BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEAKERS (2 minutes)
Rebuttal (4 minutes per speaker)
Team FOR Speaker 2- Rebuttal Speech
Team AGAINST Speaker 2- Rebuttal Speech
CROSS FIRE ONLY BETWEEN THE REBUTTAL SPEAKERS (2 minutes)
Summary (2 minutes per speaker)
Team FOR Speaker 3- Summary Speech
Team AGAINST Speaker 3- Summary Speech
CROSS FIRE BETWEEN ALL SPEAKERS (3 minutes)
Final Foci (1 minute per speaker)
Team FOR Rebuttal (Speaker 2)- Summary Speech
Team AGAINST Rebuttal (Speaker 2)- Summary Speech
END - Judges will announce the winner
Types of Speeches
Constructive Speeches
The first speech is pre-written and presents the team's "contentions," otherwise known as arguments that support or oppose the resolution, based on their side. These contentions are backed up by warrants, evidence in the form of quotes, or citations from sources.
The two speakers from each team who presented their cases will then participate in a crossfire. The first speaker from the FOR side asks the first question in the crossfire, and the rest of the crossfire consists of each speaker asking their opponent questions.
Introduction
Opening Line
Resolution
Framework
Contention 1
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Contention 2
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Contention 3
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Subpoint (Grounds & Warrant)
Conclusion
Keep it brief!
What to include in your constructive speech:
Claim
What’s the statement or key phrase that summarizes what you are about to argue?
Data/Grounds
What proof are you using to back up your claim?
Warrant
Why does the data provided fulfill the claim?
Refutation speeches
The first refutation speaker (from the FOR side) refutes the constructive speech of the against side which was given by their first speaker.
The second refutation speaker (from the AGAINST side) refutes the FOR constructive speaker AND the FOR refutation speaker.
The two speakers then engage in crossfire beginning with the FOR refutation speaker asking the first question.
Summary speeches
The summary speech is given to both reinforce arguments and refute arguments from the opponents.
This speech is crucial in telling the judge which points the debate should be judged on. The summary is often referred to as the most important speech as the competitors "weigh" their points in comparison to their opponents. Each speaker must explain why and how their own arguments are more important through the framework of scope, magnitude, prerequisite, etc.
For example, when mentioning the opposition's refutation to one of your side's most important arguments, you might explain how their refutation is invalid or ineffective and thus how your argument still stands.
Click here for more information
The summary speeches are followed by the grand crossfire, a crossfire between all speakers.
Final foci/focuses
The final focus, given by the 2 refutation speakers, is used to explain to the judge why the speaker's team should win the debate. Final foci must not bring up new material. For example, you might say that the opposition "dropped" their arguments, meaning they did not acknowledge or answer them.
Crossfire
Why is Crossfire important?
Crossfire is your ONLY opportunity to receive clarification on your opponents’ arguments! It is important to make sure you have an accurate flow (notes on a flowsheet) of all of your opponents’ arguments.
However, this can take away from your time to ask more strategic questions, and it also gives your opponents another chance to explain their arguments more in-depth to the judge.
Essentially, crossfire gives you an opportunity to expose weaknesses in your opponents’ case
How is Crossfire structured?
Whichever team speaks first will also ask the first question of each crossfire.
The first two crossfires are one-on-one.
The two participating debaters face the judge, rather than each other.
During Grand Crossfire, all debaters participate and can be seated.
The golden rule of crossfire is to question with a purpose.
Ask yourself: What am I getting out of this?
What can go wrong?
Not knowing what to ask. It may help to have a few go-to crossfire questions specific to the topic.
Letting your opponent re-explain all of their arguments. Make sure that you politely interrupt your opponent once you have the information you need, rather than letting them ramble on through all of your questioning time.
Pointless questions that don’t get you anything. Again, the emphasis should be on asking strategic questions designed to expose flaws in your opponents’ reasoning.
Asking the “last” question. In your line of questioning, you may get your opponent to reveal a flaw in their case indirectly. For example, you may find two parts of the case that contradict. Ask your opponent to clarify each part individually and ask questions such that they reveal the question. Do not, however, then ask, “Don’t these two things contradict each other?” By asking the last question, you are giving your opponent an opportunity to weasel out of the contradiction. It is extremely unlikely that they would ever concede, “Why yes, that is contradictory!” so there’s no reason to ask the question.
Flowing
What is flowing?
Flowing is the most helpful skill for a debater to have in their arsenal. Learning how to flow is important for being organized during a round. If you are an unorganized debater it will be really hard to win a round. Flowing is used to track which arguments are still in play and if any arguments have been dropped (not responded to). Oftentimes judges will make decisions based on what is happening in their flow.
In a flow sheet, there is one column for each speech, minus crossfire. You should list all the contentions, evidence, and warrants as concisely as possible in the first columns- make sure to do so neatly to make it easier for yourself to refer back to. Later, for the next speaker, when they address a certain argument from before, you should use arrows or try to write their response in line with the information you wrote down from the argument they are refuting.
Obviously, you will not be able to flow during your speech but it would be helpful to write a couple of notes in your column of what you want to go over or any notes/refutations you thought of while your opponent was speaking.
