New To PF, Have Some Questions

[PF9393]

Hey, so next year I'm going to be switching from speech to public forum debate. I will be a junior and I need some tips on styles of crossfire, ways to flow a debate, and general information on what things to bring etc.

I've watched some good debates, and the debaters have varying styles of speech giving. Do you think it is better to go fast to get out as much information as possible, or go slower for more emphasis? It seems that a lot of the top debaters in my region favor the previous.

For crossfire what kind of questions should we be asking. Should we try to poke holes in their cases or try to make them concede points about our case, or should it be an even balance between both of them.

What kind of things should the 2nd speaker have prepared, and what should be extemp?

Thanks in advance.

[SuperMegaLegend]

Ok, so what style is best all depends on where you are and what level you are competing at.

On the national circuit, I feel that speed is very important, and using many contentions and subpoints with lots of different arguments is most effective.

On the rinky-dink po-dunk local tourneys, the judges are not very good, so you need to just speak slowly and effectively, and have simple arguments.

Crossfire- The first one I think should be attacks of theirs and/or claraifying questions to set up rebuttals. The second should be used to hammer ur points in and/or finish rebutting your opponents.

Ill finish later, i gotta go now

[GTownHoyas]

Hey, so next year I'm going to be switching from speech to public forum debate. I will be a junior and I need some tips on styles of crossfire, ways to flow a debate, and general information on what things to bring etc.

I've watched some good debates, and the debaters have varying styles of speech giving. Do you think it is better to go fast to get out as much information as possible, or go slower for more emphasis? It seems that a lot of the top debaters in my region favor the previous.

For crossfire what kind of questions should we be asking. Should we try to poke holes in their cases or try to make them concede points about our case, or should it be an even balance between both of them.

What kind of things should the 2nd speaker have prepared, and what should be extemp?

Thanks in advance.

I think it is better to not go with as many points, and make the few arguments you have a strong as possible with as much back up as possible. If you go with too many points I find I have trouble talking about all of them in my rebuttal and remembering to bring them up in the crossfire. If you have a small amount of contentions that are very strong, you can bring them up over and over again for the judge and most likely will be able to refute anything the opponent brings up.

As for crossfire, I like to ask clarifying questions first to strengthen up my next speech, and then I usually like to strengthen my own case. I always find that when I try and attack my opponents, I have trouble asking questions, this is probably just me though.

As 2nd speaker all I have prepared is blocks for arguments many people will likely have.

[Sophia Mo]

My suggestion is not to speak as quickly as you think you can without sounding too garbled. Remember that PF still has lay judges. I've competed against opponents who have been quite good, but lost because the judge couldn't understand them because they were speaking way too fast. As a novice, I would suggest starting out slow, then increasing your speed when you gain familiarity and become more comfortable with debating.

For crossfire, you definitely want to ask as many questions as possible. Poke holes and find contradictions in the opponents' case more than trying to defend your own case. The best defense is a good offense, unless they completely ripped apart one of your contentions in their rebuttal and you absolutely have to resuscitate it.

I'm actually the 1st speaker, but I used to be 2nd speaker. You could prepare blocks for arguments you think the other side will have as others have suggested, but I think it would be better if you didn't write them all out. Instead of writing out potential responses to attacks from the other side, you should practice delivering a rebuttal speech to your partner's constructive speeches. Of course, try to think of any arguments that you don't use in your constructives that you could practice rebutting. Research stats that might not necessarily belong in your opening, but could contradict one of the opponents' major contentions.

Good luck!

[JoshZoffer]

Definitely do not use a lot of points, SuperMegaLegend is off base there. I would say three is a good amount, not more than four. Subpoints in general are iffy, just because lay judges often have trouble following them.

As for as crossfire, you want to ask questions when you think you can poke a hole in the other team's case, but there's nothing wrong with answering a lot of questions. If you are confident in your ability to defend your positions, just answering a lot of bad questions can be very beneficial.

For preparation, as a second speaker you will want to prepare evidence to respond to points you might hear, but the speech itself should be extemped.

[SuperMegaLegend]

I am not advocating using 10+ points, but 3 contentions each with 2-3 subpoints which link to each other will result in the largest overall impact, or reason for affirmation/negation. This is relatively simple and easy to follow.

i would agree with josh on the preparation for the second speaker

[PF9393]

Thanks for your advice.

[Laughman4]

Regarding the number of points, you are really not going to have time to effectively argue 4 contentions. Like suggested, the subpoints are more easy to use without stumbling.
Anyway, I apologize if I repeat anything already said, but here's what I've found good.

First, print all your sources. I know that's a "duh" kind of thing, but for my first 2 tourneys, I didn't cause I didn't know you had to, but luckily, no one asked for my sources. Save trees by printing more than one source on a page too. Really comes in handy if you are a serious debater with lots of sources.

Second, do not talk about anything other than debate in front of judges, as some are biased and will vote you down if you seem unconfident or uncaring.

Third, always shake your opponent's and judge's hand after the debate. This is just standard etiquette that you may have been unaware of.

Fourth, although this may not work for you, the length of my speeches corresponds with 4 min. I use a 3 page speech, double spaced, with Arial 12-14 font. If you have trouble getting within the time limit, try my way and see if it works. You may have to shave your report a little, but you can just ask your partner to say that in the second speech.

Fifth, regarding the second speech, make sure you write down or flow your opp. contentions so that you can refute them. The second speech is also great to bring up any facts that might contradict what your opp. may have said. For example, on the Jan. topic, my second speeches for con and pro always had facts about individual alternative fuels, like efficiency and such.

Sixth, on your summary and second speech, if your opponent does not refute something, bring up that they are ignoring it. Then by the Final Focus, if they still haven't refuted it, state that they agree with your contention with their silence becaause that is the only way it can be interpreted. Judges are really looking out for that stuff. It has won me countless debates.

Seventh, You do not want to bring up new facts in the summary or final focus. If you do, the judges are going to look down on you for doing so, as it doesn't follow PF debate protocol.

Eighth, this may sound corny, but go out there with confidence. If you stutter or murmer your speech, you'll receive a lot less speaking points, which may decide what place you receive. If you have a loud voice like me, be careful not to be too loud, as the judges may interpret it as yelling(it has been written on my ballots, and I'm still working on it...).

Good luck in your debates.

Edit: I forgot to mention that you want to have a cache of facts that you can use for second speech, but you do not want to have it already prepared. If you practice it enough, it will come easily, but you want to adapt it to your opponents case.

I also forgot to mention c-x. Be polite and don't yell over your opponent's voice, but don't be passive either. You want to ask short and right-to-the-point questions to poke their case. If it is too long, they may dismiss it. Also, try to cover as many points as you can. If you are stuck on debating one point, just stop and say that you need to move on.
For an example question, you could ask their views on something. In the Jan. topic, I would often ask "When do you think peak oil will occur?" This would then lead into the oil debate.

[TheRestIsPrepTime]

Okay so this year is the first year we've had a real set of Debaters that are interested in PFD. I have no idea how to like help them, since there really aren't Novice tournaments in our Area. And I really jumped right into Varsity. I wrote them a guide to how to make cases and we've been practicing but i can't tell if they are ready or not. What is the best thing that I can do for them. (btw October 2009 topic = Stupid to start novices with. but amazing to get Policy debaters to do PuF).

Okay, so like how should i get them ready to compete Varsity?

Also, My partner is going to be Novice since I'm the only Varsity PFD debater (my previous partner graduated). How do I get him up to my level before the Season starts? Just a lot of Practice? Or should we sit out the first few and watch some rounds? or is learning by doing the best method?! HELP!!!!!

Thanks!

[AffNegOmega]

Learning by doing is the only method. Debate is intrinsic. You can teach topics, but you cant teach quick and evasive tongues.