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

I'll adopt Con's rebuttal format for clarity- 1. It doesn't per se, but I felt it should be noted. 2. Con cannot claim you must to prefer his analytics over my evidence 'just cuz'. That is the epitome of abuse, he has the burden to maintain any claims he makes. Refutations The three arguments my opponent covers for policy's superiority are flawed for the following reasons; - They're not unique to policy, you gain this benefit from any kind of debate. - They're unwarranted benefits in the first place, Con shows neither that these benefits exist nor that they're inherent to Policy. - On the NDCA argument; Debate-Central offers free PF evidence[15], while Planet Debate[16], Big Sky Debate[17] and victory Briefs[18] all sell Policy evidence. These are not unique arguments, and the shorter time frame of PF debate makes those briefs much less abuse than Policy. [15] . http://debate-central.ncpa.org... [16] . http://www.planetdebate.com... [17] . http://www.bigskydebate.com... [18] . http://victorybriefs.com... - This isn't a refutation, it's 'nuh-uh, uh-huh' exchange. One tournament providing more CX rounds than PF doesn't change that fact that shorter rounds mean more time for further rounds. Also, Wiley College's TFA[19] tournamhent hosted more PF rounds than CX this year; this was the college that the great debaters was based on[20] [19] . http://www.joyoftournaments.com... [20] . http://www.thegreatdebatersmovie.com... - Again this isn't a refutation, it's a 'nuh-uh, uh-huh' exchange. A PF round is half as long as CX round, but debaters only recieve a fourth of the prep. Rebuttals- 1. Inherently bad? - My opponent doesn't provide me any warrant for these refutations, it's more of the 'nuh-uh, uh-huh' exchange I speak of earlier. This is unacceptable as a means of rebuttal, my opponent has plenty of time to form responsible and well researched responses, but he does not do so. - In the status quo, CXers do read blocked arguments over and over again, PFers do not. Do not allow him to makes these bogus claims, they're not rebuttals they're attacks. - I never said PF wasn't deep, I said that Con makes the toxic assumption that it is not. - If you believe the argument that less prep time means arguments must be generic than this debate would be nothing but canned responses; however they are not canned, they are resolutions specific. These unwarranted claims are unnacceptable. 2. Get you feet wet- - 'nuh-uh, uh-huh'. I ask my opponent to provide some proof, any proof that this is a unique benefit to CX. Evidence and analysis exists in PF, but simply at a coherent conversational level; analysis and clash exist as well. - If Can argues that analytics are so bad than why is his entire case comprised of them? Analytics are fine in moderation, the problem comes when people demand evidence to prove claims such as 'murder is bad'. - Again, there is no warrant to believe this, and Con does not even exercise this benefit here in this round. The Toulmin method is rejected in CX in favor of evidence hashing, which results in the loss of the warrant/impact structure. Data alone does not make an argument. - The education benefits of PF are immediately applicable; spreading and theory are not. 3. - If Con is going to tout names like Harvard and Northwestern, than he proves the argument of elitism to be true. Collge PF and IPDA can be practiced by anyone, and is practices by NYU and SFA respectively. Allowing greated competition is only a benefit. - Con doesn't get to call a debate a wash because his arguments are shown to be wrong. - Again, Con doesn't get to call arguments he's losing a wash. - the TOC may be *a* national competition, but they aren't *the* National competition. The TOC isn't even open to everyone, it's an elitist league which only those who can afford to travel nationally can compete in. Furthermore, it rejects the public format of PF in the first place.