History of Public Forum Debate: Stylistic Changes.

Public Forum debate was invented in 2002, originally named after Ted Turner (founder of CNN). In the two decades since its inception, nearly every aspect of it has changed, from the very foundations of the activity to the people who compete in it. In this five-part series, you will learn more about the evolution of Public Forum debate, and how it’s become the activity it is today. This is Part 2---Stylistic Changes in Public Forum Debate: Evidence Usage, Dress Code, and Speed.

#1 -- Evidence Usage

Evidence is a key component of Public Forum debate. However, this wasn’t always the case. Parker Klyn, head coach at Theodore Roosevelt, explains that “Only 10 years ago, it was a lot of analytics. It was like logical thinking. It was almost entirely paraphrasing. We didn’t even understand the concept of highlighting.” Other coaches who debated on the circuit near the beginning of the activity corroborated the fact that rebuttals would rarely utilize cards and would instead rely on pointing out inconsistencies in their opponents arguments. However, due to the widespread use of the internet and increasing access to technology that can be utilized to find and cut cards, evidence usage in PF has grown. As evidence usage has become more common in Public Forum, the type of evidence that is used has changed as well. Coach Klyn notices that there has been a growth of academic sources being used in debate, whereas when he debated, teams almost exclusively used news articles, which is likely also a result of increased accessibility through the internet. 

#2 -- Dress Code

Debates over dress codes have existed for decades and have popped up virtually everywhere, from high schools to the workplace. Public Forum debate is no exception. During the early days of PF, people wore exclusively business attire, but in recent years a shift has occurred. While some teams still have a strict policy of dressing up, other teams have relaxed their dress codes, and the circuit as a whole has become amenable to a less rigid standard of dress. Coach Klyn has experienced the shift first hand. He explains that “When I debated, if someone was not in a full suit, we were like ‘Wow, they’re probably gonna lose’... a couple years ago at the TOC, I saw someone who was in a graphic tee and I was like, things are changing.” Dylan Morgan, assistant coach at Theodore Roosevelt, remarks that when he was a debater around six or seven years ago, his team “cautioned women that they might be penalized for not wearing [heels]. Now, however, I haven’t seen much of that.” The shift has come as a result of conversations around how dressing up can make debate inaccessible to lower-income debaters, as well as a shift away from strict dress codes in America as a whole. 

#3 -- Speed

Public Forum was originally created to create an alternative to its fast-paced sibling events. Its shorter speech times were meant to curtail the speed at which information was delivered. However, as the event has grown, the use of speed in PF rounds has grown as well. Sophia Gustafson, assistant coach at Iowa City West, explains that “In terms of national circuit tournaments, the speed has just taken over. I’ve judged 2800 word cases…when I did debate in high school, we capped our cases usually at 800 words.” This increase is due to multiple factors, such as the increasing complexity of PF arguments. Since debate is a game where each team wants to win, it’s strategic to speak fast so you can fit in more arguments, forcing your opponents to come up with a greater number of responses within the time limits of the rounds. Technology is another factor. Vivian Yellen, former debater at Bronx Science, claims that “People could read much faster as a result of speech docs, and people could be way more efficient.” She goes on to explain that people are also able to read and find more evidence easier compared to before technology like computers were commonplace. Speed has changed the way debate functions both positively and negatively. On one hand, speed allows for a greater number of arguments to be made in rounds, increasing clash. On the flip side, arguments can also become blippier and contain less warranting, which can hurt the quality of the round as a whole. Speed also has negative implications for accessibility in debate, and can lead to the exclusion of debaters who cannot process speed.