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

1. Why does it matter who I am? 2. All of DoctorDeku's "evidence" supports known facts (i.e. how many resolutions each type of debate has). Unless DoctorDeku provides evidence that specifically refutes my logical analytics, default con. Three reasons why policy debate is better - information processing, argument innovation, and argument development. He hasn't directly answered any, especially information processing (both in and out of round). Do not let him make any arguments later to this effect. - At least all NDCA evidence is free and compiled by individual teams and schools. http://foundationbriefs.com... is a site where public forum debaters can purchase evidence (without having to look for it themselves) - this incentivizes bigger schools out-buying smaller schools and not doing any research. - No, PF rounds being shorter means the debaters can't delve in-depth into any complex arguments because they have to narrow down the arguments too quickly. Policy debaters, if they were put in public forum, would clash equally as much., but there is more clash in policy rounds because there is more time and great delivery rate. Additionally, Glenbrooks proves policy debaters have more rounds than public forum debaters at a single tournament (7 vs. 6) http://www.joyoftournaments.com.... - Policy debaters think on their feet way more in-round. The speed of delivery means that in-speech, debaters must formulate arguments off the top of their head. Prep time debate is a wash - PF rebuttals are 2 minutes whereas policy debate rebuttals are 5 - the extra prep time just evens it out. Having a few weeks to prepare arguments just means they don't get in-depth into the topic. Refutations- 1. Reasons why more resolutions are inherently bad - denies argument innovation and development. One topic per year does not provide excuses to repeat the same subject matter - debaters would always lose if they read the same arguments over and over, since other teams would be ready for these generics. It only incentivizes new arguments to be written to surprise teams. - If the format of PF detracts from its educational value, an attack on the former is a valid argument. He concedes PF rounds aren't deep because the topic span is too short. - If the topic changes once every month, teams will be forced to read generics every round. Policy debaters are constantly in the process of writing blocks to new arguments. - Education is dependent on learning the literature of the topic - if not, there is no reason to change the topic. 2. Policy debate offers on-your-feet thinking and information processing as readily applicable skills. - He forgets what happens after that evidence is read - analysis and clash of the evidence is the core of a good policy debate. That requires a lot of thinking on your feet, especially at high speeds. - Oops. PF welcomes purely analytical arguments without any warrants - policy debate is evidence-centered, and analytics made that facilitate clash are welcomed. - Toulmin method is vital in the analysis of evidence. Plan focus is good and most real-world - instead of complaining about a problem, we actively seek to solve it with a policy. - We are arguing about the educational value of a format of debate - policy debaters garner skills that can be used anywhere; how they garner it is irrelevant. 3. - Seven local schools hardly constitutes a competitive debate league, whereas big names like Harvard, Northwestern, Stanford, Georgetown, and others all participate in intercollegiate policy debate. - This debate's a wash - policy debate topics are also about current events that everyone has access to. - Recall argument above - schools can out-buy other schools. - No, in the past three years, Harker has won the TOC's twice and Walt Whitman has been runner-up twice. PF is still young, so schools haven't established themselves yet. http://en.wikipedia.org...(debate)