Skills Gained from debate...

Passing rather than forfeiting is the right thing to do. A "pass" is not a conduct violation.I will outline a few points of my case to give you something to chew on.1. Which is better all dependsWhether verbal or written debate is more valuable depends upon what skills a person values. Since the criteria is undefined the resolution claim that verbal debate is more valuable necessarily fails. The Con case therefore fails.Verbal debate helps develop public speaking skills. A person may learn to speak clearly without stumbling over words. Written debate helps develop writing skills. A person may learn to write in a clear and direct style. Which skill set is more important depends upon what you might apply the skills learned. If your career is in marketing, verbal skills may be ore important. If your career is in engineering, written skills are probably more important. Without knowing how the skills will be applied, it is impossible to say which is more valuable.2. Verbal debate emphasizes performance artThere are valid and important verbal debate skills, but a person can get away with tricks and logical fallacies that would not survive the patient analysis of a written debate. Verbal debate does not allow for research to be done during the debate. That means that ere is a premium on unusual cases and strange claims for which the opposition is not prepared. A verbal debater may believe something true and present it with some dubious reference that cannot be checked during the debate. for example, false 9/11 Truther claims abound in that category, claims like "no wreckage of flight 93 was ever found" when in fact nearly all of it was recovered. The more fanciful the claims, the more tedious the checking.In verbal debate the same topic is debated repeatedly. Packaged research can be bought or shared, so the debater does not have to develop research skills at all. Written debate requires original research, and that skill is important to all decision making.Humor and cheerfulness count for a lot in a verbal debate, but have no bearing on the facts. They count in written debates too, but not so much. The idea is to get the audience to accept what you say on the grounds that such person is less likely to be devious. That's not true, but the trick often works. If your business depends upon factual analysis, then written debate is better. However, if your business depends upon perceived cheerfulness --perhaps entertainment or politics-- then perhaps verbal debate is better. A verbal debater can load the debate with dozens of short claims that are difficult to refute in a short time. Jesse Jackson is a master of this style of overloaded speaking, coupled with other tricks of verbal presentation. Consider this account of Jackson's speaking:" Jesse Jackson is one of the most verbally convincing speakers I know. Whenever he speaks, it seems to draw me in, and make me believe everything he touches on. His looks are intimidating along with his piercing eyes and strong southern accent. If he’s serious about something, the audience knows it. If he’s praising someone, the audience will be well informed of why this person deserves such gratitude. If he’s happy or concerned, the audience will also be aware" http://www.exampleessays.com...So, is what Jackson says true? The essay doesn't say and the essayist doesn't care. The performance is impressive. Verbal debate includes the triumph of style over substance. that's not necessarily bad,but it's often bad, and it's certainly a difference from written debate. For people whose business is not performance art, which I think is the future of most debaters, the analysis, research, and written skills are more important, so for them written debate is more valuable.So now it's Con's turn to define "more valuable," and why he thinks definition is objective.