Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

Dear Coaches and Volunteers,

This curriculum will give you a clear, succinct guide of some of the best practices that we have
collected over the years when it comes to teaching debate to new students. Each coach and
volunteer is different. Do not feel obliged to follow this too closely as long as your students are
progressing each week at a solid pace, your approach is probably right on the mark. Even so, its
often nice to have something like this curriculum to look on as a bit of an assessment. Do your
students know Claim-Warrant-Impact? Do they know the format well? Have they had an actual
practice round? Do they know how to flow the round by taking detailed notes during it? These
are questions you should be asking yourselves as you try to best prepare your students for the
next tournament, and as you help them holistically in terms of their critical thinking, public
speaking, and research skills.
Another key tip: always keep the next event in mind. If your school competes in the weekly
debates sponsored by ASAP, tailor practices to that end. Weekly debates might require earlier
topic analysis and case-writing. If the Fall Tournament is coming up in two weeks, make sure
that preparation for it has begun.
In that vein, some key dates:
Saturday, 11/23 Fall Tournament at Penn
Friday-Sunday, 2/14 - 2/16 the Liberty Bell Classic national debate tournament at Penn
The following blocks of curriculum are broken up into checkpoints. While we used to advocate
a week-by-week system, it seemed that we were not instructing coaches and volunteers to get
into topic analysis until about Week 5. Ideally, topic analysis will start at the second or third
meeting, at least in some capacity. Read over the checkpoints and do your best to fit it to your
teaching/coaching style. We encourage creative improvisation so long as productivity is
maintained. Best of luck!
Sincerely,
PFYD

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

Checkpoint 1
Introductions. We want students to feel comfortable with their debate coach and
volunteers, as well as with each other. Therefore, play several rounds of name games
and icebreakers. Have each student give you the following information:
o Name
o Grade
o Why they decided to join the debate team
o What they hope to get out of debate
o Where they hope to be in ten years
Make sure to collect students email addresses and contact information.
Try to gauge where everybody is in terms of debate, e.g., how much debate/research
experience they have in order to tailor next weeks lesson.
The first week is also a good time to speak to the importance of debate. In front of the
students, it would be helpful for volunteers to verbalize:
o Why they chose to do debate in high school.
o How debate was helpful in high school.
o How debate was helpful in the college admissions procedure.
o Why they choose to teach debate.
Let the students know what they have to look forward to
o Benefits of debate
o Debate tournaments
o College
Do a short introduction of debateremember, this day is supposed to focus on
introductions, not debate specifics, so do not introduce too much.
o Two-person debate.
o Introduce the debate topic.
o Explain that they will learn to speak, write arguments, answering arguments, etc.
Get everyone excited about debate!
Checkpoint 2
Introduce argumentation. Students should be able to identify the three main parts of an
argument, and should feel comfortable putting together a simple argument on their own.
Students should be introduced to the three main parts of an argument, namely:
o Claim: The claim is essentially the title of the argument. If one were trying to
argue that apples are healthy, the sentence Apples are healthy would be the
claim. It simply states the beginning of the argument, but does not go any farther.
The claim does not have to explain why an argument is true, or why this matters;
these parts of the argument come later.
o Warrant: The warrant is the reason why an argument is true. For example,
referring back to the apple argument, a warrant for apples are healthy might be
that apples contain certain nutrients. The warrant is probably the most important

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

part of the argument because, without a reason for its validity, an argument holds
no weight.
Impact: The impact is the reason why an argument matters. For example, who
cares if apples are healthy if no apples exist? Thats not a great example, but the
basic point is that the impact explains why we should care and why the argument
has any weight at all. So, to continue the apple example, a claim-warrant-impact
would go something like this:
Apples are healthy.
Apples are healthy because they contain Vitamins.
Therefore, everyone should eat apples to reduce their risk of disease.
Game: The Claim-Warrant-Impact model is fundamental, so you should spend a
large amount of time ensuring that students understand the model and can actually
formulate arguments that fit within the model. To test their ability to do this, come
up with some pop-culture debate topics and ask students to generate arguments in
the claim-warrant-impact model. The basic point is to divide students into teams
and have them come up with arguments for their side of the topic using the ClaimWarrant-Impact model. Then, have them explain their arguments to the group.
Some ideas for topics:
Harry Potter charactersgenerate Claim-Warrant-Impact for why one
character is better than another
Fast food restaurants
Movies
Any current pop culture issue
Game: Another way to test understanding of the Claim-Warrant-Impact model is
to put a bunch of mis-matched arguments up on the board. Then, ask students to
put the arguments together, like a puzzle. For each argument, they should be able
to identify the claim, warrant, and impact.
Game: Pass out a current events article or an old debate case ask students to
identify where the claim, warrant, and impact(s) are, or identify where essential
parts of an argument are missing. This game is particularly useful, since students
will need to identify arguments during debate rounds in order to answer them.

Checkpoint 31
Overview of Public Forum debate.
Public Forum Debate (PFD) is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by
the resolution. PFD is meant to:
o Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis.
o Utilize evidence.
o Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team.
o Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional
decorum.
1

Information in this section about PFD is taken from The National Forensics Leagues Guide to
Public Forum Debate.

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

Basic Format of the Debate

o The debate starts with a coin toss, and the winning team selects either the side it
will argue or the speaker order (whether they want to begin the debate or give the
last speech). The team that loses the toss will then decide their preference from
the option not selected by the winner.
o Speeches/Time Limits
Speaker 1 (Team A, 1st speaker): 4 minutes
Speaker 2 (Team B, 1st speaker): 4 minutes
Crossfire (between speakers 1 & 2): 3 minutes
Speaker 3 (Team A, 2nd speaker): 4 minutes
Speaker 4 (Team B, 2nd speaker): 4 minutes
Crossfire (between speakers 3 & 4): 3 minutes
Speaker 1 Summary: 2 minutes
Speaker 2 Summary: 2 minutes
Grand Crossfire (all speakers): 3 minutes
Speaker 3 Final Focus: 2 minutes
Speaker 4 Final Focus: 2 minutes
o The speeches/time limits will be a lot of information for them to digest, so just put
the information out there and emphasize that they will be doing this in
partnershipsas an individual, they really only have seven minutes of speaking
time and six minutes of cross-ex to deal with.
o Once students have mastered the structure of the debate, you can go (briefly) into
what needs to happen in each speech.
First Pro Speech
Constructs arguments advocating the resolution. The key analysis
will be to present major reasons why there is a problem. This
speech should have a brief introduction to frame the teams case
for the judge. If definitions are important for the topic, they should
be presented here. A few reasons for adopting the topic should be
presented with accompanying evidence. Each reason should be an
independent reason to vote for the team, and should explain why it
is pertinent. The speech should conclude with a summary of the
arguments covered.
First Con Speech
This speech constructs arguments showing the disadvantages of the
resolution and why it should not be adopted. If the pro speech has
the advantage of a changing future, the con speech has a track
record of experience (status quo) and why change is ill-advised.
The rest of the speech elements will be the same as the pro-speech.
Third & Fourth Constructive Speeches
Both of these debaters have the burden of refuting the other teams
arguments by analyzing and explaining flaws in the opponents
position. The debater should identify the oppositions key
arguments and attack their legitimacy by:

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

o Turning the analysis to work against the other side

o Presenting evidence that destroys or reduces the opposing
position
o Presenting alternate causes that are not accounted for by the
opposition argument
o Exposing argument inconsistencies between the speakers or
between the opponents and their statements during
crossfire.
To best accomplish refutation, both members of a team should
have a consistent approach and a unified view of what is important
and less important. An argument format could be an introduction
that links the teams second speech to the first speech, followed by
an overview of the issue, which is frequently the opponents
argument, followed by reasons/evidence why the opponent is
wrong, followed by what this argument clash now means for your
side in the debate. In addition, some time in either of these
speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original case.
Speeches should conclude with a summary.
Summary Speeches
These are complicated speeches because each debater has to find a
way to explain issues in the light of all that has happened so far
in just two minutes. New evidence, but not new arguments may be
presented, except for responses. This means that a limited number
of issues can be addressed.
For example, perhaps develop one to two issues from the debaters
side on the resolution and one from the opponents side of the
topic. The speech should have a brief overview. On each key
argument, the debater can add a short original quotation, anecdote,
or fact.
The Final Focus
This frames, with clarity, why your team has won the debate.
Again, no new arguments may be presented; however, new
evidence may be introduced to support an argument made earlier in
the debate. Before the final focus, debaters should ask themselves
If I were the judge in this debate, what would I be voting on?
Sample strategies
o Choose the most important argument you are winning and
summarize the analysis and evidence that make it so
important.
o Turn a major argument from your opponent into the
winning analysis and evidence of one of your important
argumentsthis technique clinches two arguments.
o Answer the most important argument you may be losing by
summarizing the analysis and evidence that you believe
takes out the opponents argument.

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

o Choose an argument that you believe the judge will most

likely vote on.
o Expose a major inconsistency made by your opponent
two arguments that contradict each otherat least one of
which the opponent is focusing on in order to win the
debate.
If you can get through all of this information with extra time, it might be beneficial for
the students to watch a practice debate to see this format in action. You can find these
online ask your teacher about technology) or you can show a demonstration round.
Checkpoint 4
Focus on ensuring that students understand the Public Forum speeches format, which
should have been explained already. You might begin the lesson by quizzing students on
the Public Forum format, and what needs to be accomplished in each speech (they can
use their notes). You should then review the format, and what needs to be done in each
speech.
You can then move on to talking about the crossfire portion of the debate. There are
three periods of crossfireone between speakers 1 & 2, one between speakers 3 & 4, and
one between all of the speakers. Use this lesson to help students understand the purpose
of the crossfire sections, as well as prep time.
o Crossfire: Questioning periods give debate interactivity and a chance to build
clash. In crossfire, both debaters have equal access to the floor, but the first
question must be asked to the debater who just finished speaking, by the debater
from the other team. After the initial question and answer, either debater may
question or answer. A debater who attempts to dominate or be rude to his
opponent will lose points. Good questions are brief and good answers must meet
the question. In the first two crossfires only, the corresponding speakers
participate, and they stand next to each other.
o Grand Crossfire: Seated, all debaters interact with one another. The first question
is asked to the team that just ended its summary by the other team. After the initial
question and answer, any debater may question or answer, and all should
participate. The same guidelines for rudeness and stalling apply to Grand
Crossfire. Resist rushing questions or answers, or trying to do too much in
crossfire; desperation is not persuasive.
o Prep time: Each team has two minutes of prep time. For very practical reasons, a
team should not use prep time until their summary speech or final focus. Being
prepared on the arguments is the best way to avoid using prep time until it is vital
to select the key arguments and issues.
Game: In order to hammer home the point of crossfire, present several pop-culture
arguments to the students. The arguments can have obvious holes in them, beg the
question of the topic, or just generally be inadequate. Then ask students to develop a list

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

of questions about the arguments, pair them off, and have them engage in crossfire.
Students will learn from this to question arguments, and to defend the arguments.
Checkpoint 5
Now that students have mastered the basics of public forum debate, you should move on
to discussing the topic. Dedicate this debate practice to the following:
o A review of the fundamentals of PFD (do a quick quiz or a quick review)
o Introduce and analyze the topic. Spend 20-30 minutes going over the background
of the topic, analyzing key words in the topic, and just helping students to
generally understand what the topic is all about and why it was chosen (use the
topic analysis you were given for this).
o Spend the next 20-30 minutes helping the students to generate pro arguments
for the topic. Ask students to help come up with arguments with a full claim,
warrant, and impact. The students should then take these arguments home and try
to come up with evidence for the arguments.
Checkpoint 6
This should be another topic-focused practice. First, have the students share any evidence
they found at home. If students were unable to bring in any evidence, consider spending
the first 20-30 minutes of practice helping the students to find evidence. Even if they
have brought in evidence, this might be a good time to introduce students to how to
research (i.e. show them how to properly search Google, Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, etc.)
Spend the remaining time going over con arguments for the topic. Again, students
should each come up with around three full con arguments, each with a claim, warrant,
and impact. Students can then take these arguments home to research.
Volunteers and coaches should stay in communication by email. Coaches might consider
helping students research while volunteers are not present, or might consider assigning
research for homework.
Checkpoint 7
By now, students should have a solid understanding of the topic, and will want to actually
start debating. Use this week to stage mini-debates. Assign half the students to argue
the pro of the topic, and half of the students to argue the con of the topic. Then, pair
up the students.
o Each pro will get 2 minutes to present 2-3 arguments in support of the topic.
o Each con will have 3 minutes to present arguments against the topic, and to argue
against the pros points.
o The pro will have 1 minute to respond to the cons points.
Let each pair go through their mini debaters and then have the students discuss, as a
group, what arguments were effective and what arguments were ineffective. You can
discuss common pro/con arguments, and how to make them stronger. Then, students can
begin piecing together their cases (which are really just 3-4 arguments for the side).

Penn for Youth Debate/ASAP Philadelphia Debate League

2013-2014 Curriculum (High School Public Forum)

Checkpoint 8
Go over the students cases. Unlike LD cases, theres not anything complex about PFD
casesstudents simply need to have contentions for each side. However, each student
needs to ensure that they have 3-4 contentions that actually have claims, warrants, and
impacts. Have students share the arguments that they have come up with thus far, so that,
collectively, you can all plug the holes in the arguments.
Have the students go over each others cases and point out flaws, arguments that dont
make sense, etc.
Students homework should be to refine their cases, as the next week will be practice
debates!
Additionally, since students will soon be debating in the Fall Tournament, go over the
following points:
o Delivery: Effective delivery is critical to impact the arguments for judges.
Practice delivery in front of ordinary people: teachers, parents, relatives, etc.
Make sure youre speaking slowly and enunciating.
o Explain to students how judges judge, and how they can try to control the process
i.e., be sure to understand how experienced a judge is and adapt to that, and
communicate clearly.
Game: To prepare them for the arguments that they are going to see, students could spend
time writing blocks, which contain several prepared answers to a given argument,
together with a fun game. Write the most popular pro (or con) arguments on the top of a
sheet of paper, one argument per page, and ideally one argument for each student. Then,
make the students sit in a circle and pass out the sheets. The game has begun, and each
student should write down a possible counter-argument or idea as it comes to their head,
making it as complete as possible. Each minute, call out and the students should pass the
paper in their hand to the next person on the right. The students cannot repeat arguments
on the sheet of paper, although they are free to add to an existing argument. Repeat until
everybody has seen every sheet of paper, and then discuss what is written on them.
Repeat the game again, but with the other sides arguments.
Checkpoint 9
Practice, practice, practice.