Public Forum, usually called PF, is a two-on-two high-school debate format. Learn the speech order and times, crossfire rules, judging, evidence expectations, and recent NSDA resolutions, then practice the format against an AI opponent.
The coin-toss winner chooses either side or speaking order. The other team chooses the remaining option, so Pro does not always speak first.
| Order | Segment | Time | Who speaks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Constructive | 4 min | First speaker, Team A |
| 2 | Constructive | 4 min | First speaker, Team B |
| 3 | Crossfire | 3 min | Both first speakers |
| 4 | Rebuttal | 4 min | Second speaker, Team A |
| 5 | Rebuttal | 4 min | Second speaker, Team B |
| 6 | Crossfire | 3 min | Both second speakers |
| 7 | Summary | 3 min | First speaker, Team A |
| 8 | Summary | 3 min | First speaker, Team B |
| 9 | Grand crossfire | 3 min | All four debaters |
| 10 | Final focus | 2 min | Second speaker, Team A |
| 11 | Final focus | 2 min | Second speaker, Team B |
Teams also receive three minutes of prep time each. The timed speeches and crossfires total 35 minutes. With prep, the coin toss, and transitions, a full PF round usually takes about 45 minutes.
The season opens on Resolved: The United States federal government should enact a moratorium on hyperscale data center construction. Two words decide most rounds. Moratorium is a pause, not a ban, so the Pro is defending a stop rather than a permanent prohibition and should say so in the constructive before the Con defines it as one. Hyperscale is the limiting term: this is the largest class of facility, not every server room, and a Con that blurs the two is running a link to a plan the Pro never defended.
Almost every ballot on this topic comes down to whether the harms are national or local. Con evidence tends to be national and aggregate, Pro evidence tends to be county-level and concrete. Neither is automatically better, so do the comparison out loud in summary rather than assuming the judge shares your instinct about which one counts.
Most PF ballots reward clear, lay-accessible delivery. Local norms vary, and some national-circuit rounds are more technical. Evidence carries weight only when the speech explains what the source proves and why it changes the ballot.
The Pro/Con coin flip happens at the start of every round, so you prep both sides. Strong PF debaters build a single core contention per side and link every piece of evidence back to one weighing mechanism: probability times magnitude, scope, reversibility, or moral framing.
AI regulation is not an NSDA resolution. It is a practice motion, used here because the contention chains transfer to most tech-policy topics. The Pro burden is to show that AI regulation produces net positive outcomes. The strongest contentions tend to be:
The classic Pro weighing is probability × scope: lots of small harms across millions of users, multiplied by likelihood of regulatory effectiveness.
Con's job is to show the harms of expanded regulation outweigh. Common chains:
Con tends to weigh on magnitude and irreversibility; once you lose a generation of researchers or open-source ecosystems, you don't get them back.
Public Forum (PF) is a two-on-two high-school debate format. Teams prepare both Pro and Con because a coin toss determines side and speaking order. Constructive speeches are four minutes, rebuttals four, summaries three, and final focus two. Three timed crossfire periods create direct questioning between the teams.
Each team gives one four-minute constructive, one four-minute rebuttal, one three-minute summary, and one two-minute final focus. Three crossfire periods last three minutes each. The timed speeches and crossfires total 35 minutes. Add three minutes of prep per team, the coin toss, and transitions, and tournaments usually schedule about 45 minutes per round.
Quoted or paraphrased evidence should be traceable to the original source with the author, publication, date, and title available. Carry the full source and be ready to produce it when an opponent or judge requests it. Source quality, recency, and the explanation connecting evidence to the contention all matter.
Crossfire is a three-minute back-and-forth question period between two debaters from opposing teams (speaker-1 crossfire after the first two constructives, speaker-2 crossfire after the rebuttals). It's conversational, not a one-sided cross-examination. Aggressive crossfire (yelling, talking over) gets penalized. Goal is to pin opponents to concessions.
The final focus is the last two-minute speech for each side. No new arguments allowed. Purely weighing: which impact outweighs on magnitude, probability, timeframe, or scope, and why the judge should write the ballot for your side. The cleanest final focuses give the judge a one-sentence ballot story plus one comparative weighing argument.
Monthly during the competitive season (September through April). Some months use the same topic for two consecutive months for major-tournament continuity. The Tournament of Champions (TOC) and NSDA Nationals each have their own topic announcements. Resolutions are released about three weeks before the start of the relevant month.
PF is two-on-two evidence-based and lay-accessible; LD is one-on-one philosophical with a value-criterion framework. PF resolutions are policy-flavored ("Resolved: The US should..."); LD resolutions are normative ("a just society ought..."). PF avoids jargon for lay judges; circuit LD embraces kritiks, theory, and faster delivery.
Substantive claims that drive a contention need evidence. Definitional or framework claims usually don't. The strongest PF teams cut two or three high-quality cards per side, explain each one thoroughly, and use the rest of the time for analysis and weighing. Card spam without explanation gets discounted by most judges.
Short guides on the moves that win specific PF speeches.
Pick a side. The AI takes the other and runs a full PF round (constructive, rebuttal, summary, final focus), then writes you an RFD.
Debate this motion → Or debate a stranger on video →