The critical principles and elements of Public Debate were listed in the preamble to the Constitution. The following more specific event description is intended to provide a practical set of guidelines for competitors and tournament directors. Public Debate is an academic public speaking exercise which is defined by the following elements, rules, and procedures:
A. Eligibility: There are no eligibility restrictions in public debate. Absolutely everyone is welcome to participate.
B. Judges: Anyone of reasonable intelligence can be used as a judge. It is actively recommended that judging pools be made up of as wide a range of backgrounds, abilities, and perspectives as possible. Tournament directors are encouraged to use lots and lots of class or volunteer undergraduate students as judges.
C. Ballots: An official ballot will be used in judging Public Debates. Copies of this ballot will be made available by the Managing Director. They may be purchased at cost plus 20% from the Association or members are free to have their own versions produced. Any substantial deviation from the official ballot must be approved by the Executive Committee.
D. Seating: Contestants must seat themselves such that, from the audience's point of view, the Affirmative is on the left and the Negative on the right.
E. Topic Areas & Resolutions: The topic areas and specific resolutions for Public Debate are left to the discretion of Tournament Directors. The International Public Debate Association will provide complete formatted master sets of resolutions for Tournament Directors upon request on a cost plus 20% basis. Topics should be fair to all parties attending Public Debate tournaments. Tournament Directors should avoid local issues which are inaccessible to visiting competitors. Resolutions should be as balanced as possible giving equal ground to both the Affirmative and Negative.
F. Topic Draw: Contestants will meet for an extemporaneous topic draw before the scheduled start of the debate. The official recommended draw time is 30 minutes but the exact time is up to the Tournament Director. Contestants will be offered five (5) topics. Each pair of opponents will independently select the topic they wish to debate. Starting with the Negative speaker, each contestant will alternatively strike one of the five until only one remains. That will be the debate resolution for the round. Contestants must complete the topic selection process independently and without outside assistance. Tournament Directors may set their own policies concerning the mechanics of the draw, including what to do about competitors who show up late and topic draw protests.
G. Preparation: Debaters are permitted to use reference materials during their preparation time before debating. They may utilize extemporaneous speaking type files, dictionaries, reference books, libraries, or anything else for that matter. They may also consult with teammates and/or coaches for ideas and advice.
H. Format: Public Debate will use the following Lincoln-Douglas format:
5 Minutes Affirmative Constructive
2 minutes Cross Examination
6 minutes Negative Constructive
2 minutes Cross Examination
3 minutes 1st Affirmative Rebuttal
5 minutes Negative Rebuttal
3 minutes 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal
---------
26 minutes Total (approximate)
Tournament directors must receive Executive Committee approval to deviate from this format. The IPDA makes no recommendations concerning prep time between speeches. This is a matter of the Tournament Director's discretion and it is recommended that the policy be included in the tournament invitation. In the absence of an announced rule, special prep time between speeches is not allowed. Judges should be made aware of prep time rules and count off for abuses.
I. Use of Evidence During Debates: Contestants may not bring written reference materials into the round with them. No 'reading' of evidence will be permitted. Contestants may not even copy evidence verbatim onto their flow sheets to be read during a speech. They may only bring and reference case outlines and limited notes which they may have worked up during the preparation period before their round. Evidence must be memorized or paraphrased for use during debates. This is another case where judges should be made aware of this rule and instructed to count off for abuses. Serious violations of this rule should cause the judge to automatically award the decision to the opponent.
J. Fairness: Debaters will, as much as possible, be left to their own devices. Affirmative's are allowed to define resolutions pretty much as they see fit. However, Affirmative interpretations and definitions must leave Negatives fair ground for the debate. If an Affirmative's case is too lopsided and/or tautological (used to define itself as winning by definition), this opens the door for the Negative to provide an alternate set of definitions. But the Negative can only redefine terms if the Affirmative has abused its prerogative. If the Affirmative can demonstrate adequate Negative ground when challenged, then Affirmative definitions will have presumption. The judge is the final arbiter of definitional squabbles.
K. Nomenclature & Procedure: The two sides in a Public Debate will be known as the Affirmative and Negative. There will be no "rising" to points of order, standing with one hand on your head, or heckling during speeches. If debaters have questions or problems they should ask about them during cross-examination and/or raise them as points during their next speech. Debaters can always appeal to a judge after a round, but the decision of the judge is final.
L. Style: The goal of the International Public Debate Association is to promote a highly rhetorical and oratorical style of public speaking. For this reason, it is recommended that judges be instructed to award the decision in a close round to the superior speaking style rather than to the negative.
M. Etiquette: Public Debaters are expected to maintain a highly polite, civil, and professional demeanor during rounds. Judges should be instructed to reward appropriate ethos and count off for abusiveness.