The UIL should adopt PFD as a sponsored event

Negative CaseMy sole contention is that Public Forum Debate is inferior as compared to Lincoln Douglas Debate, so it should not be sanctioned by UIL in order to promote LD.SA: Public Fourm debate is less educational. Because of its focus on the practical applications of philosophy, LD debate encourages high school students to learn about basic ethical theories, critical thinking skills, and excellent logic abilities. Because it is a form of one-on-one debate, students who are involved in LD learn to rely on themselves and to become better debaters by virtue of the fact that they must take full responsibility for their successes and failures. In addition, Lincoln Douglas topics consistently involve the same moral issues. For example, in the resolutions "Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce the law", "Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government", and "Resolved: Public health concerns justify compuslory immunization", ideas the relate to the social contract and an individual's relationship to the state as well as the proper course of action when the government fails to fulfill its function are explored by competitors. In addition, LD debate teaches students to understand both sides of the issue because, unlike in PuFo, in which individuals choose their positions based on coin tosses, LD debaters are forced to debate both sides of the topic. The impact of this is that LD debate provides a consistent mechanism with which to teach students about complex moral and legal ideas. Public Forum debate, however, is less educational because it involves partners, and thus does not allow for self-reliance. In addition, PuFo debates often devolve into evidence wars, and persuasion is favored over logic, meaning that the argumetns in PuFo debates are less sophisticated as the contentions in LD.SB: PuFo is less accessible to poor students. PuFo topics change on a monthly basis and involve extensive research. This disadvantages poor students and their schools because in order to compete, they must purchase evidence files such as the Finalist Files just to have the same evidence as their peers. Since the most important aspect of PuFo is the evidence war, teams without the resources to purchase evidence will be at a massive disadvantage. LD topics, however, are changed every two months, meaning that teams will have to purchase fewer files. In addition, the emphasis is on logic rather than on evidence, so some successful debaters do not even need to purchase evidence at all. Moreover, since the moral issues behind LD are very similar for each topic, retention rates in the issues remain high because students do not have to start fresh; they can apply what they learned from one topic to the next. This gives LD an edge over PuFo because it permits poorer students to enter into the field. Even if they fail on one topic, they can always use what they learned to succeed on the next topic; PuFo does not allow for this because topics are changed very quickly and are not related. More CompetitorsThis is outweighed by the fact that the quality of competition increases in events such as LD, which are more conducive to learning and provide greater educational opportunities to debaters than PF does. By not sanctioning PF, the UIL encourages students to compete in LD, which is a worthier end than gaining extra competitors. Poor CompetitorsI have already turned his argument against him. Note that my advocacy does not include CX, so even if PF is better than CX, it does not matter because my advocacy only includes LD. In addition turn the research in CX because CX and LD teach research skills, whereas PF debaters buy a plethora of corporate files to get evidence. At the point that this is true, the educational advantages of LD clearly outweighs any skills gained in PF. Thus, the UIL is rightfully refusing to sanction PF debate.