Public forum superiority.

This is a topic that I have wanted to debate for a while with other members of my debate team, but, unfortunately, my school only does public forum (the horror, right? ). There are a number of misconceptions regarding all three forms of debate, and I’m sure that both sides will emerge from the debate with more knowledge and understanding of the opposing side. FRAMEWORK As the topic is fairly straightforward, I won’t be employing an extensive framework. The resolution asks both sides to compare the benefit to the individual in terms of overall usefulness. Thus, whichever side can convince the voters that their form of debate provides the most opportunities throughout an individual’s lifespan, and manages to weigh the impacts of these opportunities heavily, should win the debate. COMMUNICATIONS There are a number of differences between the two forms of debate, but they can essentially be summed up as follows: While Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate both focus on winning argumentation, Public Forum focuses on being the more persuasive debater. Thus, rather than making extensive use of plans, kritiks, theory, and otherwise complicated arguments in order to argue as effectively as possible, Public Form debate prioritizes arguing in a convincing manner. This is accomplished primarily by making use of “lay judges. ” As Public Forum is intended to be the common man’s debate, both teams must appeal to a judge which mirrors an average person off the street. Thus, speed, jargon, and theory are strongly discouraged and often result in a loss for the debate round. Rather, Public Forum teams must emphasize arguing clearly and efficiently. By no means, however, does this turn Public Forum into a speech event. Clearly, being the more convincing team also requires effective argumentation. Thus, public forum teams learn both how to argue effectively, and how to argue convincingly – with more emphasis on being persuasive. IMPACT: Quite obviously, being more persuasive provides greater use to an individual than being an effective arguer. This is because being more convincing will, by definition, convince an individual more than being a better arguer. If, for example, my opponent and I were debating in any sort of political setting, I would garner more votes if I could be more persuasive and appear to win the debate. This is true even if my opponent had absolutely wrecked me in terms of argumentation. Essentially, winning arguments means nothing if you do it in a way that is completely incomprehensible to the public (due to overuse of speed, extensive use of jargon, and complex kritiks and theory arguments, etc). Public Forum emphasizes skills necessary to convince the general public, rather than be a really good debater and then fail to persuade anyone. TOPIC MATERIAL I’m not yet sure which form of debate my opponent will be advocating for, so for now I will be comparing Public Forum to both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy. There are two keys differences between the topics provided for each form of debate. 1. Public forum topics change on a monthly basis. Lincoln-Douglas topics change every two months, while Policy debaters must argue the same topic for a year. 2. Public forum topics typically reference current political issues, such as health care, China, income disparities, etc. By contrast, Lincoln-Douglas uses topics regarding philosophical issues, primarily moral obligations. Policy debaters do argue political issues, like Public Forum, but the topics are based around creating plans regarding lesser known issues, such as public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa, space exploration, ocean environmental protection, etc. IMPACT 1: We’ll begin with the impacts of a shorter topic cycle. When a Policy debater graduates high school, they will have debated four topics, each for a single year. Lincoln-Douglas debaters will graduate with 16 topics worth of experience. However, when a Public Forum debater graduates, they will have debated 32 topics over their career. By simple math, we can tell that 32 topics is a lot more than four and sixteen. Thus, assuming that Public Forum and Policy/Lincoln-Douglas debate both allow for the same depth of research regarding a topic, Public Forum would grant four times the knowledge of current issues than Policy. This is likely the portion of my argument that my opponent will contest, by claiming that a longer topic cycle allows for a level of depth which will outweigh the knowledge gained by public forum. I don’t wish to establish a pre-rebuttal to this argument, as I’m not sure how exactly my opponent will argue it, so I will be reserving this for later. The resulting impact of increased topic knowledge is clear. By gaining an understanding of more issues which affect modern society, Public Forum debaters have more opportunities to apply this knowledge. When arguments occur throughout a pufo debater’s life, they will already have an in-depth understanding of the topic and hand, and be able to apply it in a superior manner to a Policy or Lincoln Douglas Debater. IMPACT 2: Next, we’ll look at the impacts of the superior topic material. An elaborate link is less necessary for this impact. By debating issues which are actually affecting modern society, rather than philosophical/plan based arguments that remain relatively unknown to the general population, public forum debaters will have increased opportunity to apply topic knowledge into the world. Indeed, some past topics can help to reinforce this point. Look to the first topics of this season. 1. For Public Forum, “Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change” and/or “Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. ” 2. For Policy, “Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. ” 3. For Lincoln-Douglas, “Resolved: The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens. ” Clearly, knowledge on the effects of climate change, and the necessity/lack of necessity for gun control could applied to society in a superior manner than knowledge on “terrorism justice” and a plan for transportation infrastructure. Public forum topics are far more pressing issues, which provide a superior benefit to the individual should they gain and apply knowledge in the subject. I now turn the debate over to my opponent.