Public forum superiority.

Framework:1. The Resolution asks which form of debate is most useful, but does not specify to whom it must be useful. Prioritize utility to society:a. Magnitude of societal utility outweighs individual utility- we should prioritize what is best for the greatest number of people.b. Societal utility subsumes individual utility. Individuals do better in flourishing societies, while individuals can do well at the expense of society. What is useful to society is inherently useful to individuals; society is made of individuals so this is almost definitionally true. c. Societal utility is more relevant to the goals of debate. Debaters argue about public policy and what is best at the societal level.2. On both the societal and individual level, prioritize education, including critical thinking skills, as more useful than persuasion.a. Education cuts across professions; persuasion is situational. I use the critical and abstract thinking skills I learned in policy debate daily but very rarely engage in persuasion.b. Political education is crucial to the success of a democracy- a well-educated populace will vote more wisely.c. Education subsumes persuasion- better educated individuals can argue more persuasively.3. Prioritize Work Ethic over Persuasion: Work Ethic subsumes Persuasion- a strong work ethic can be used to develop persuasive abilities while the reverse is not true.What it means to be useful:a) My opponent stated in R2: “Policy debate…[focuses] on winning argumentation… making extensive use of plans, kritiks, theory, and otherwise complicated arguments in order to argue as effectively as possible.” He has conceded that policy debate prioritizes winning arguments and arguing effectively; winning arguments is done by presenting a clear and logical case.b) Pro dodges the meat of my argument, that force of argument trumps oratorical skill as exemplified by Kant, by focusing on the phrase “clear and logical” as a point of contrast to the complex nature of policy debate. This is exactly the type of dodgy lawyering public forum teaches.c) Kritiks are philosophical arguments about the nature of justice and political advocacy- these are high visibility issues that manifest themselves in the form of Occupy Wall Street and libertarian advocacy. People engage in critiques all the time- Eisenhower’s “military industrial complex” speech was effectively a kritik. Kritiks question assumptions about how we talk about and interpret the world, they encourage self-evaluation and criticism. These are skills which help individuals constantly seek to better themselves. Philosophical challenges to the status quo are crucial to societal progress- it was precisely such a challenge which birthed American Democracy.d) Theory arguments take up issues of what types of arguments and strategies are fair in a debate round. These arguments force reflexive thinking- debaters must analyze the activity they are participating in and justify the tactics they use. Theory arguments hinge on issues of maintaining educational and competitive standards in debate, keeping alive discussions about how policy debate should function to best serve these purposes.e) Kritiks and Theory require critical thinking to understand and argue effectively. These issues challenge debaters intellectually and develop the ability to think about how abstract concepts . Additionally, they encourage strategic thinking in the same way that chess or poker does. These are universally useful skills in both the soft sciences like law and philosophy and in the hard sciences, where abstract concepts like mathematics must be applied f) Pro points out that Kritiks and Theory don’t exist in PF, meaning they are a net benefit to policy via their educational benefit.g) Pro demonstrates the educational damage PF does when he claims that “Public forum emphasizes argumentation only to the point where it is necessary.” PF teaches that argument is nothing more than a power struggle in which the goal is to get your way. Pro values logic and reasoning only as tools to manipulate others; he decries the use of “complex” argumentation because complex arguments are hard to use as tools of manipulation. This is bad for both the individual and society- a doctor or bridge engineer that prioritizes appearing correct over being correct will have a disastrous career and do massive societal damage.h) Pro’s focus on “persuasion” and “winning” arguments misses the point. The ability to craft structurally sound but very complex arguments is valuable in itself, regardless of whether or not the arguments immediately result in persuasion. These types of arguments get published in scientific journals or become major philosophical works or make it in front of the Supreme Court. High level decisions are made based on the types of “complex” arguments Pro feels is not useful in manipulating the general public; knowing how to construct such arguments has enormous individual and societal value. Pro explicitly concedes that PF does not engage these types of argument.Benefits of “appearing” to win an argumenta) Pro claims judge crossover is bidirectional, but note that PF judge crossover depends on the existence of the policy and LD judging community. This means that any usefulness PF gets from judge crossover is derived from policy debate, demonstrating that policy debate has spill over into other communities and is useful even to those who do other forms of debate.b) If policy debate ceased to exist, Pro’s judge crossover argument would disappear. Policy has a diverse judging pool independent of PF, only policy debate is self-sustaining.c) Pro says we should look to what each form of debate emphasizes: only policy emphasizes both strong argumentation and persuasion. Pro’s repeated claims that argumentation is only valuable as a means to an end proves PF places minimal value on argumentation.d) Pro’s R2 framework was just an assertion, I equally asserted that societal utility was more important; see this round’s framework for further analysis. It is obviously ok for Pro to respond to my framework in his final round.Topic Knowledgea) Policy debate involves a broad range of topics. Feel free to check out the range of arguments available at the open evidence project as proof of this. List includes: Keystone Pipeline, Space Elevators, Keynesian Stimulus, Russian Oil, China...[1] Of the topic Pro lists that policy supposedly doesn’t talk about, I have heard every issue except gun control argued this year.b) Pro concedes that policy debate results in deeper topic knowledge, but doesn’t address my arguments that topic depth is key to learning how to refine arguments, spurs more intense research, and forces critical engagement with evidence. These are useful skills that PF fails to engage.c) I do not deny that PF uses evidence; Pro ignores my argument about how the structure of PF makes in depth evidence comparison impossible. The longest speech in PF is shorter than the shortest policy debate speech. Yes some evidence comparison takes place, but the level of analysis involved in PF is far below that of policy- I say this both from the standpoint of one who has judged both events and from the standpoint of the event structure.My Case:a) Pro doesn’t address that policy’s ability to critically engage evidence force evidential competition and creates a stronger research demand and burden. Policy rounds are twice as long and twice as fast so the evidence used per round is also much larger. This creates a larger work load, both a work ethic and educational net benefit.b) Pro doesn’t address that longer rounds mean a wider range of arguments are involved each round. Whereas PF gets argument diversity by changing topics every two months, policy debaters are responsible for a wide range of topics all season long. This again increases research burden, work ethic, etc. [1] http://www.debatecoaches.org...