How to Judge a Public Forum Debate Round

The Catholic Forensics League, also known as the CFL, is one of the two main leagues for speech and debate (the other being the National Forensics League, also known as the NFL). While every district may have slightly different events or rules used in judging the events, the basic rules for judging Public Forum are listed here. This list is based off of the events and rules used by the Palm Beach Catholic Forensics League (also known as the PBCFL) district in south Florida.

Public Forum

A public forum round consists of two teams of two people. At the beginning of each round, a coin flip will occur. Whoever wins the coin flip will have the option of choosing either their speaking order (first team to speak or second team to speak) OR which side they will take on the topic (pro or con). If the team that wins the coin flip decides to be the first speaker, the other team can choose which side they will take on the topic. An example of a topic for public forum is "Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States." The team on the pro side would argue that private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States, while the con side would argue that the private ownership of handguns should not be banned in the United States. The first member on the team that is speaking first will have four minutes to introduce and explain their stance. The first member of the second team will then have four minutes to do the same. The two team members that just presented their arguments will have three minutes of crossfire. The second speaker on each team will each have four minutes to further explain their stance, while trying to prove why their argument is stronger than the opponents. The second speaker from each team will then have a three minute crossfire. Each team then has two minutes to summarize their arguments. All four debaters will then participate in the grand crossfire, which will last four minutes. Each team will have one minute to spend on the "final focus", which allows them to leave the judge with their final thoughts.

When judging a public forum round, you should look for logic and evidence. The debaters should cite credible sources (such as articles from CNN, Newsweek, The Economist, etc) to support their arguments. Sources such as Wikipedia should not be used. Also remember that this is a debate, not a fight - a team should loose points for loosing their cool (yelling, getting upset, etc). Competitors should not have to rely on pre-made speeches to get their point across. If they spend the entire four minutes of their speech looking down at a paper, it is clear that they are not as familiar with their information as they ought to be. Eye contact is essential, as it shows confidence in not only the topic at hand, but with public speaking as well.

Let's pretend that the resolution stated earlier ("Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States.") was being debated. One would expect the pro side to possibly use some of the following arguments in their case: A banning of private ownership in handguns will reduce violent crime rates, it will allow for police forces to be more effective, and it will help reduce the rate of accidental deaths due to handguns. While all of these are logical arguments, you should make sure they are backed up with the following: statistics that indicate that handguns play a large role in violent crime rates and that, by banning them, will help lower that rate; quotes of officials who believe that police officers will be able to control situations more effectively when they do not have to face off with a criminal who owns a handgun; and statistics and possibly a human interest story about children who have been accidentally shot by handguns in homes

On the flip side, the con side may argue that: A ban would violate the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms, may put people in danger if they are in an unsafe environment, and would hurt the arms business. If these arguments were used, you should look for the following types of evidence: Quoting the 2^nd Amendment; statistics and/or a human interest story describing the need for personal protection in unsafe areas; and quotes from economists that show how the economy would be hurt if sales of privately owned guns were banned.

It is important, although difficult, not to pick the winner by what your opinion is. Ultimately, the team with the best logic and strongest evidence should win the round.