Learning to Argue Both Sides

I entered my first Public Forum tournament in fifth grade. The resolution asked whether expanding access to human gene editing technologies would do more good than harm. At first, it sounded like a question about science. As my partner and I prepared, I began to see that it was also a question about fairness, risk, and responsibility.

Researching the resolution

We prepared cases for both sides. We gathered sources, wrote our opening arguments, and challenged each other’s reasoning. Arguing for wider access meant considering what the technology could make possible. Arguing against it meant taking its risks and unanswered questions seriously.

Preparing both positions changed how I researched. I could not stop when I found evidence that supported one claim; I had to ask how someone on the other side might respond. Questions such as Who would benefit? and What safeguards would be needed? helped me look beyond a simple yes-or-no answer.

Preparing as a team

Public Forum was new to both of us, so we had to learn the format as well as the topic. We rehearsed our speeches, planned questions for crossfire, and thought through how an argument might develop across a round. Just as importantly, we learned to work together: sharing research, questioning each other’s drafts, and helping each other prepare for difficult responses.

Learning in the room

The tournament showed me the difference between knowing my notes and responding to the people in front of me. Preparation gave me a foundation, but I also needed to listen closely, think under time pressure, and make my points clearly with my partner. That first experience made debate more than an exercise in defending a position. It became a way to test an idea from several angles—and to keep learning when the conversation did not go as planned.