Public Forum Debate holds a greater education benefit for U.S. Students than Policy Debate

Public forum debate[1] (PF) is a high school debate format focused on clear argumentation and communication in non-technical terms. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Policy debate[2] (CX) is a high school debate format focused on the resolution of policy issues. [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... I ask that readers consider the arguments herein under a standard of educational comparative advantage; whoever can show a greater educational advantage will win. I will argue that there is a greater educational benefit to participation in PF, while my opponent will argue that there is a greater benefit to participation in CX. This is a short debate, and there are an infinite number of arguments that my opponent and I *could* cover. That being the case only the things which are explicitly stated in the debate will be voting issues. Judges should be mindful of this and vote accordingly; do not make the arguments for us. First; PF gives students the opportunity to debate more topics than CX does In the United States, the three biggest debate organizations (NFL[3], TOC[4] and CFL[5]) use the same resolution for CX debate. This single resolution lasts for an entire academic, so a student in policy debate for four years would only get the chance to debate 4 different resolutions tops. PF resolutions on the other hand change once a months, giving students the opportunity to debate 9 different resolutions a year,[6] and 36 different resolutions throughout their entire academic career. The opportunity to debate so many more resolutions means first of all that students are learning more things than those participating in CX debate. It also keeps them on their toes in actually writing different arguments instead of just running the same pre-written arguments over and over again the entire year. [3] https://www.nationalforensicleague.org... [4] https://ci.uky.edu... [5] http://www.ncfl.org... [6] https://www.nationalforensicleague.org... Second; Skills learned in PF debate are more readily applicable PF has a very simple debate format.[7] There are no rules as to what needs to be included in a PF case and no rigid guidelines as to how the debaters actually have to argue. Coaches teach their students basic argumentation techniques such as the Toumlin Method[8], how to avoid logical fallacies and let them run with it. As a result PF debaters tend to format their arguments in as clear a format as possible so that anyone listening could understand them. They able to readily apply these skills after they graduate and put their debate education to use. CX on the other hand is so complicated that most circuits only allow experience debate alumni to judge rounds in the first place. This decline in clarity is the reason PF was created in the first place[1], members of the debate community insisted that CX had become an overly specialized way to spew as much jargon and evidence as possible - the academic benefit of the activity had been lost. [7] http://debate.uvm.edu... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally; PF's format allows more competition than CX's does The clear debate format of PF means that students of just about any skill level can get involved and not have to worry about being 'spread out' by a school who could afford more, and better evidence than they could. PF continues to increase in popularity at the annual NFL national tournament, whereas CX continues to decline[9]. As a public debate format, PF allows anyone to to participate and treat the event as a learning experience. Debaters have greater flexibility in their argument style and aren't penalized for stylistic mistakes CX on the other hand continues to progress towards a state of elitism in who can even participate in the event in the first place [9] https://www.nflonline.org... I will offer more arguments along side these next round as space allows.