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

I would like to preface this round with three observations- 1. This debate is the only activity on my opponent's page. This includes personal information and friends. 2. My opponent's account only slightly predates the acceptance of this debate. 3. My opponent has provided no evidence to support his arguments, or even any warrants beyond analytical syllogisms. My conclusions are as follows- - My opponent is likely another active member of this site, and is using a proxy account for some reason. - If two claims offered are conflict you should default Pro because my arguments are warranted. That said my opponent's constructive took the form of a single paragraph; I will list out attacks against this paragraph which should be reasoned by in no special order - the NDCA's open evidence project[10] and Cross-X[11] refute Con's research argument. There is tons of free evidence available for CX debaters which encourage laziness. - That PF is shorted than CX means that debaters must be more selective about what they choose to cover in a round. It also means that debates are more clash oriented and less procedurally oriented and that more rounds take place in the span of a tournament. - CXers have 8 minutes of prep in round, and an entire year to block out arguments; PFers have 2 minutes of prep in round and only a few weeks to prepare arguments. If anyone thinking on their feet it's the PFers, not CXers. [10] http://www.debatecoaches.org... [11] http://www.cross-x.com... Onto refutations, First- - Con provides no reason why more resolutions are inherently bad, he only asserts that fewer topics encourage innovation. However this ignores the initial argument I make a year providing excuses to simply repeat the same subject matter over and over again. - Con makes the toxic assumption that PF rounds aren't deep because the topic span is so short; this is not an argument against PF's educational validity but an attack on the format itself. - Con makes the claim that 'canned' arguments only happen in PF because of how short the topic span is, however the rapidly changing topic necessitates different arguments be made every round. CXers however write out blocks that they use for the entire year. - Con belittles the educational value of PF by assuming PFers can't remember every resolution they've ever had -- education is not dependent upon memorized facts but on skills and lessons learned. Second- - Reading prewritten arguments and evidence off of a sheet of paper can hardly be considered 'thinking on your feet'. especially when CXers have 5-10 minutes of prep in a round while PFers only have 2. - Unless the arguments were written before the debate, they're typically useless in CX as judges don't listen to purely analytical arguments; CX discourages this kind of arguments, PF on the other hand welcomes it. - CX's stock issue format does not utilize the Toulmin method; it focus on stock issues to determine the viability of a plan of action. It doesn't encourage the same kind of argumentation the Toulmin method does. - Finally the fact that the debate itself isn't readily understandable by the general public warrants the format's loss of coherency. Third, - The 'CX exists in college' argument is one of the most common, and most misguided arguments there is. PF does indeed exist at the college level[12]. Furthermore, IPDA[13] is a college debate that holds the same communication and clear argumentation values as PF. - Next, while it's true that you can be spread out in any event, it's much less likely you'll be spread out in PF since the topics are usually current events that anyone has access to. - Finally, no school has ever won PF nations more than once[14]. This is not the case with either LD or CX[14]. [12] http://www.sunyrockland.edu... [13] http://www.ipdadebate.info... [14] http://nflnationals.org...