The UIL should adopt PFD as a sponsored event

Con- First before getting into the bulk of my refutation, I'd like to offer a few key points of clarification. These attacks are not meant as direct refutation, but more so for the understanding of my opponent. + In UIL LD the topic only changes once a semester, where PF adopted by the UIL then we can obviously infer that it would follow a similar pattern and the topic would not be changed as often + PF is already a readily practiced debate in the UIL circuit, and most UIL practice tournaments already offer it in competition. The real issue here is allowing PF as a state qualifying event for UIL. + To be successful in UIL PF as it currently exists, one needs nothing more than internet access, and vigilance to news sources. That said following arguments are direct refutation. I appologize, but since my opponent's arguments where not linearly marked, my arguments will not be able to be bulked together. Instead I will cover key arguments made throughout my opponent's case, marking each new refutation by a (+) mark and each sub-refutation by a (++) mark SA: + My opponent never warrants that PF is less educational + PF also encourages these same skills. Especially in Texas, PF is seen as blended debate combining the attributes of both LD and Policy, thus some of the most successful PFers have both qualities. Yet still time and time again, they cannot compete at the state level + PF teaches teamwork, something LD does not. It also emphasize communication among partners. + Since PF resolutions deal with the news, similiarities are easily able to carry over among different resolutions. This will be especially true in Texas, where the topics will likely interweave with more domestic issues. + Social Contract understanding is almost universally understood among debaters, no matter their chosen format. + Consistency in argumentation can often be a bad thing, as student never have to challenge themselves, and never learn to apply what they've learned outside of debate. (As a seasoned LDer I understand this greatly) + LD can often turn into evidence wars as well, however since PFers have subtantially shorter speeches this is actually more likely to happen in LD than PF. + It is painfully unlikely that PFers will only ever debate one side. SB: + Again all they need is access to the internet. Something they're highly likely to have anyway if they're in any school in the state of Texas. + Extend prior + Extend Texas topic changing clarification + Extend blended debate argument + Books on Philosophy are far more expensive than printer paper and ink. + PF teaches more than just topic based evidence, argumentation is taught as well which certainly carries over. Pro- More competitors- 1. My opponent's refutations are unwarranted assumptions. 2. Students will not start flocking to LD because the UIL rejects a chance to expand a student's opportunity, they're more likely to just give up. 3. My opponent's refutation is arrogant at best, rude at worst. Mind you I'm an exceedingly avid LDer myself[9]. I understand the benefits very well, but I also understand the limitations. Poor Competitors- 1. I have already refuted this turn, also I would like to point out my opponent drops the planet debate argument. 2. CX is a huge part of the NFL. The only advocacy my opponent would be happy with is a world where we debate solely LD. 3. This debate isn't about LD v PF. I would be glad to have it, but my opponent never really warrants that PF shouldn't be accepted by the UIL, just that LD is superior. And I actually agree with this statement. LD is my favorite form of debate, and I love it. But in all my years of experience (4) I've learned it just isn't everyone's cup of tea. My opponent must accept this too, and allow their elitist attitude to stop letting them deprive others from the chance to compete. I urge a Pro vote. = Sources = [9] . http://www.nflonline.org...