Public forum superiority.

Also, Times New Roman yo. What does it mean to be “useful? ” My opponent claims that a clear and logical case is a pre-requisite to appearing convincing. This is true, but only to a limited extent. Before we dive into my refutation of his claim, we first need to examine the ways in which policy debate emphasizes “clear and logical” argumentation. Unfortunately, this is fairly difficult – because there are none. As I claimed in my previous round, Policy debate emphasizes winning argumentation over being persuasive, at least when compared to Public Forum. So how exactly does it go about doing this? It doesn’t. In fact, it accomplishes the opposite. Policy debate makes extensive use of complex argumentation, a claim which went virtually uncontested. I openly ask the voters: How useful is it to stand up in your post-debate career and claim you don’t have to solve the problem, because it’s inherently biased towards your opponent? How useful is it to claim that genocide shouldn’t be discussed, because it’s not cool to argue in debate? How useful is it to argue at a speed where you need specially trained judges to understand? The list goes on and on. While Public Forum emphasizes argumentation in a “clear and logical” manner, Policy debate employs kritiks, speed, jargon, theory argumentation, and more skills which will serve no purpose upon the end of an individual’s debate career. Now that we understand how policy debate focuses on ridiculous strategies, his case on argumentation effectively falls apart. However, as claimed above, we’re still going to look at my opponent’s analysis of argumentation versus persuasiveness, where he claims that emphasizing argumentation is a prerequisite to persuasiveness, and thus is the superior option. To this, I have two responses. Public forum emphasizes argumentation to the point where it is necessary. Recall that I explicitly claimed Public Forum does not turn into a speech event. Public Forum debate does use a clear “claim, warrant, impact” structure. Evidence comparison is extremely extensive, especially in the recent topics, in which common arguments analyzed the internal warrants behind insurance saving lives, climate change, economic theories, etc. However, after a certain point (the point where an argument makes logical sense) being a persuasive speaker and selling your argument will outweigh actually winning your argument. Persuasiveness outweighs argumentation regardless. Recall that there is absolutely no benefit to winning an argument if it is done in an unclear manner. If I can convince the general public to vote for me, or to buy my cars, that’s more important than proving that I am the superior political option, or that my cars are the best on the market. My opponent makes a pre-response to this claim, so let’s analyze that next. Benefits of “appearing” to win an argument My opponent has, unknowingly, virtually conceded this point when he claims that being “charming snake oil salesmen” benefits individuals, but hurts society. Recall, however, that we are debating usefulness, rather than overall benefits. My framework was not extensive, but was still not responded to; and it clearly laid the round out to be judged on the opportunities available to an individual over their lifespan. If Public Forum allows me to sell my cars, but kills fifty seven babies, then the skill is still more useful, regardless of harms to society. Indeed, my opponent himself lays out the benefits of appearing to win an argument. Just two of his examples include presidential debates, in which appearing to win the argument and manipulating the masses is more vital than effective argumentation, and selling cars. Manipulation, while it may seem to be morally wrong, provides greater use to an individual over their lifespan than actual argumentation. My opponent does, however, have some saving grace, when he claims that the benefits of Public Forum are not mutually exclusive with the benefits of Policy debate because of the incorporation of multiple judges. Again, I have two responses. This argument can be turned on my opponent because it works both ways. While Public Forum may emphasize lay judges, they are not the only judges employed. I have had numerous rounds judged by policy/ld judges, in which I am able to spread, use more in-depth argumentation, and focus less on being the more convincing speaker. Thus, at absolute best, my opponent’s response washes both cases, because “judge crossover” is not exclusive to policy debate. We should be looking to what each form of debate emphasizes. Yes, policy debate may incorporate lay judges, but it still places heavy emphasis on complex argumentation for progressive judges, and that is the prime skill which a policy debater will gain. Topic Knowledge My opponent’s response is essentially non-responsive. Rather than looking at individual points and laying out 6 responses which each address a single word in my case, we’re going to emphasize the end result. Policy will grant in depth knowledge on one topic. If we’re comparing this current debate season, then Policy debaters will have knowledge regarding transportation infrastructure and all sub-arguments. Public Forum debaters, however, will have knowledge on climate change, gun control, foreign policy, the benefits of taxes versus spending cuts, the Citizens United ruling, the effects of China on the U. S. , government mandated health care, whatever the nationals topic turns out to be, and all sub-arguments. This outweighs for two reasons. Because the topics are more applicable to modern society. Yes, transportation infrastructure affects the United States. However, knowledge on transportation infrastructure doesn’t open as many opportunities as in-depth knowledge on 8 different topics. Whereas Policy topics are affecting society, Public Forum topics are affecting society in ways which are large enough to warrant the general public becoming involved. More opportunities would arise from knowing a variety of different topics which often become food for table discussions, rather than a topic that is unknowingly harming the U. S’ infrastructure. Because Public Forum topics allow for in-depth knowledge as well. Con claims that policy debate is superior for knowledge because of comparisons regarding evidence, but completely ignores the fact that public forum is highly evidence based as well. Are you going to convince a judge to vote for you without evidence? Absolutely not. Every claim is not only warranted, but is internally analyzed and compared against your opponent’s evidence throughout the debate. My opponent still holds an elitist view of public forum, and is entirely misunderstanding how the actual debate rounds go. Organization/Work Ethic/Research Skills Since these claims really don’t fit under any major voter, I’m just going to lay out two responses. These benefits are non-unique. Success hinges on preparation/organization in public forum as well. Research is done, evidence is analyzed, blocks are prepared, etc. People walk into debate rounds with gigantic mounds of evidence just as often in Public Forum. We often take 50-60 hours’ worth of self-research and well as 700-800 pages of briefs (on the computer, obviously) into each round, and our opponents do the same. The impacts are negligible. My opponent grossly exaggerates the long term benefits of learning how to sort evidence. The real story goes as follows: You put 600 pieces of paper on a computer, use control + f, and then apply roughly 1% of that experience to the rest of your life. I eagerly await my opponent’s next round (and the response to our TOC at-large application bid, wish us luck).