Public Forum is the best form of high school debate
Debate Rounds (5)
please do not take this if you are not in high school currently!!!
cross ex allowed in comments.
round 1 negative case
2 aff case
and rebuttals carry from round 2 on, but no new arguments in the last round.
round 5 summaries
good luck and thank you!
I'll make my points really brief, as the real debate will be when Pro writes their arguments. Because I am to pose my case first, I will only outline instead of writing it all out. Otherwise I would have an unfair advantage.
1. Partners - Partner's very often disagree, it's human nature. Having a partner that disagrees with what you say could ruin the entire debate. Lincoln-Douglass is 1 v 1, therefore, you don't have to rely on another party.
2. Morality - Lincoln Douglass debate morality and what should happen, or what should be valued. However, in Public Forum, you are forced to take a side and explain that something has to happen for x amount of reasons. Whether you like the side you're on or not, there are no loopholes out of the structure, tying you down to one opinion.
3. Structure - Lincoln Douglass debate is more structured, as many in High School debate would agree with. In Lincoln Douglass you sincerely have to know what you're talking about. Whereas with Public Forum, made up sources don't matter because your case is short, and you can stick them where ever you want to help your side, as opposed to sticking with facts and philosophers.
4. Values - Again with the flexibility, Lincoln Douglass allows you to chose your path in the debate, whereas in PF you must take one side and debate facts. In PF it's more "what's working" than "what should be fixed."
Thus, I turn it to Pro for her case. I will write my entire case in the next round, because otherwise this debate is unfair.
I'm gonna go line by line down his case and then present some of my own arguments.
My opponent is basically arguing that it is bad to have a partner because "partner's often disagree." What we need to understand here is that their are three more important sources of value from this partnership.
First, remember the saying two heads are better than one? Well, in PF you now have someone to check your ideas and help prevent you from saying something you will regret. You have more flow of ideas and can tackle different jobs in round that will lead to better success. IE: "I'll concentrate on attacking C1 if you take C2."
Second, you gain teamwork skills. Obviously in life you will have to work with partners, and public forum is one of the best ways to gain teamwork skills, especially due to the high-pressure setting. You learn how to forgive someone if they mess up and how to treat people that are so important in your life.
Third, you now have a camaraderie. IE: Someone to hang out with all the time at tournaments, find rooms together, and share good and bad memories with.
First, PF tackles both moral and practical issues. We have to morality element as well, but it isn't as overwhelming. Plus, we add more of a practical aspect to moral questions as well.
Second, the issues tackled in PF are more contextual to real life. It is, after all, a public forum. For example, the average American citizen is more affected by Stand Your Ground Laws than Targeted Killing.
Moreover and perhaps more importantly, notice an error my opponent makes under morality. He states that LD debates "what should happen." Not necessarily true. It talks about what is and isn't moral. For example, take the recent LD topic "Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool." All it asks is whether it is moral, not whether the government should do it. Often times, other factors outweigh morality.
This point carries very little weight in the round.
But regardless, Public Forum has a unique element here that makes it better: fairness.
At the beginning of every PF round, a coin is flipped. The winner of the coin toss can pick either speaking order or the side they wish. The loser picks whichever the winner did not pick (side or speaking order). This ensures that each team will have at least half of what they want. In LD, sides are predetermined and speaking order is set, so it is all or nothing.
Also, of course you need to know what you are talking about in PF, otherwise you will lose. There's cross fire to ensure this. There are also opportunities for evidence checks.
My opponent is a little confusing here. You cannot "choose your own path" in LD. It's predetermined what side you are by schematics before the round. So that way, if you don't get the side you want, you may find yourself debating that the death penalty is moral even if you are morally opposed to it. And he's also very wrong when he says "In PF it's more 'whats working' than 'what should be fixed." Actually, Pf resolutions talk about policy change. IE: What to do, what to fix, etc. LD doesn't. For those of you familiar with rhetoric, public forum deals with the future, or deliberative tense. LD deals more with the present, or value tense.
Also, I'm not sure why my opponent thought it was unfair to me to post his whole case. I would have preferred that actually, but thank you for your concern.
A few more arguments for PF
1. PF allows a more diverse array of knowledge.
Ultimately, PF isn't restricted. It has no limits and can debate about anything! Since topics change monthly, we learn more topics than LDers do. While LDers may have the opportunity to go more in depth, PF gives you a better set of knowledge. It's like this: Imagine you were building a door. LDers may have a really nice, shiny gold handle for that door. But that's pretty much it. They went really hard for a nice handle. But their door doesn't have enough sturdy wood or a good hinge. PF is more well rounded, and the door will be more useful for its lifespan.
2. PF has a wider reach
My opponent is contending basically overall that LD is more knowledgable etc. Even that were true and you buy that argument, that's fine. PF matters more in the real-world because it can actually reach the real world much better. PFers have no right to complain about "lay judges" because anyone should be able to go into a PF round and take something out of it. All people deserve the right to be able to understand a debate. Not only those who competed in it in High School or debate coaches. For LD, about 1% of the population can understand it.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
photopro21 forfeited this round.
whyt3nn3rdy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.