The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

The UIL should adopt PFD as a sponsored event

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,811 times Debate No: 20759
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)




Hey guys! It's been a while since we've been able to hang out, so I wanted to pop in and say hey.

As usual, and as will likely be the norm until I graduate I'm completely devoid of time (figuratively speaking of course) and have about a million things to do. So being the masochist that I am, I've decided it would be an absolutely fantastic idea to have a quick debate on here. I mean it's just been so long.

So before beginning there are some clarifications I'd like to offer-

1. I may forfeit a round of this debate via time-out. If it comes to that please forgive me and the the win with grace.

2. the UIL will be understood as the Texas academic/athletics association for elementary through high school students known as the "[1]University Interscholastic League"

3. PFD will be understood as "Public Forum Debate" as is practiced and sanctioned by the [2]National Forensics League

4. This debate is meant to be light hearted, but by no means a joke debate. Evidence is encouraged but only as a mean of strengthening warrants to arguments, not as warrants in and of themselves. What I mean is that your arguments should have warrants independent of evidence, I want your analysis.

5. Definition debates are discouraged, but if you insistent on their necessity I'll cover them as they arise

6. It would be optimal if some-one with experience in the UIL would accept this debate, but it's not necessary.

= Sources Cited =


I accept on the grounds that LD Debate is a superior form of debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright, well first-off a huge thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate!

I'll be brief here, but in this first round my intention is to establish as basis and a key arguments behind affirmation of this resolution.

1. Greater involvement-
Anyone who's ever been involved in competitive academics should be familiar with debate/forensics. It is the most popular, and farthest reaching academic event in the entire world. The National Forensics League is also an incredibly well established organization, toting the support of many colleges and businesses[1]. Oprah Winfrey has even recognized the benefits of the NFL and spoken her own achievements in speech and debate[2].
Now moving along to Texas: the UIL has been nationally recognized for it's achievements in extracurricular academic achievement[3]. However with as much as the UIL has achieved, many kids are still very weary to join their school's speech and debate teams. Many teenagers do not have the time to invest into their school's debate program because of how much work does in fact go into being a debater. This has cause the UIL to consistently struggle in getting students involved in either speech or debate.
Furthermore, the UIL only hosts six different forensics events: Policy debate, LD debate, Persuasive extemporaneous speaking, Informative speaking, Poetry interpretation, and Prose interpretation. Their logic behind offering so few events is a flimsy one at best: Balance.
They fear that by adding public forum as a state qualifying event, they will have trouble balancing it alongside the other debate events the UIL offers. The national forensics league, however has not had this problem, with just as many entries in lincoln-douglas and policy debate attending their national tournament every year.

Impact: By adding Public Forum Debate as state qualifying event in the UIL, more students will be willing to compete.

2. Who benefits?
Although studies have shown that smaller schools tend to have a lower rate of drop-outs[4] they also have lower funds. This means that unlike larger 4A and 5A schools many 1A and 2A schools lack the resources to be able to build a strong foundation in speech and debate or their students. You see it time and time again that larger schools tend to dominate the forensics arena in terms of Lincoln-Douglas debate ad Policy as well.
Success at LD requires substantial understanding of philosophy, and their practical application. Smaller schools just don't have the funds to consistently buy the necessary books for their students to be well versed enough in philosophy to compete as vigorously with larger schools. And while there are a few exceptions in LD, CX debate is the real killer to small schools.
For those unfamiliar with the style, CX is an evidence debate in which students are taught how to solve, fund, and explore issues of policy. Policy debaters spend hours on end researching their topic and compiling extensive brief on their subject. It is not at all uncommon to see Policy teams carrying around up to eight large tubs to evidence[5]...

But seriously[6]

Keep in mind these kids are expected to carry these tubs all over their place of competition. Often as big as whole universities. But even more than that evidence is expensive.[7]

Impact: PFD is much cheaper, and gives smaller (and poorer) schools the chance to break into the event.

If we want forensics to spread, we want to allow more people the opportunity to compete, and if we want to avoid male teenagers dressing up as Lady Gaga, vote in affirmation to add PFD as a UIL sponsored event.

= sources =


Negative Case

My 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 Competitors

This 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 Competitors

I 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.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for their arguments!

First before getting into the bulk of my refutation, I'd like to offer a few key points of clarification. These attacks are not meant as direct refutation, but more so for the understanding of my opponent.
+ In UIL LD the topic only changes once a semester, where PF adopted by the UIL then we can obviously infer that it would follow a similar pattern and the topic would not be changed as often
+ PF is already a readily practiced debate in the UIL circuit, and most UIL practice tournaments already offer it in competition. The real issue here is allowing PF as a state qualifying event for UIL.
+ To be successful in UIL PF as it currently exists, one needs nothing more than internet access, and vigilance to news sources.

That said following arguments are direct refutation. I appologize, but since my opponent's arguments where not linearly marked, my arguments will not be able to be bulked together. Instead I will cover key arguments made throughout my opponent's case, marking each new refutation by a (+) mark and each sub-refutation by a (++) mark

+ My opponent never warrants that PF is less educational
+ PF also encourages these same skills. Especially in Texas, PF is seen as blended debate combining the attributes of both LD and Policy, thus some of the most successful PFers have both qualities. Yet still time and time again, they cannot compete at the state level
+ PF teaches teamwork, something LD does not. It also emphasize communication among partners.
+ Since PF resolutions deal with the news, similiarities are easily able to carry over among different resolutions. This will be especially true in Texas, where the topics will likely interweave with more domestic issues.
+ Social Contract understanding is almost universally understood among debaters, no matter their chosen format.
+ Consistency in argumentation can often be a bad thing, as student never have to challenge themselves, and never learn to apply what they've learned outside of debate. (As a seasoned LDer I understand this greatly)
+ LD can often turn into evidence wars as well, however since PFers have subtantially shorter speeches this is actually more likely to happen in LD than PF.
+ It is painfully unlikely that PFers will only ever debate one side.

+ Again all they need is access to the internet. Something they're highly likely to have anyway if they're in any school in the state of Texas.
+ Extend prior
+ Extend Texas topic changing clarification
+ Extend blended debate argument
+ Books on Philosophy are far more expensive than printer paper and ink.
+ PF teaches more than just topic based evidence, argumentation is taught as well which certainly carries over.

More competitors-
1. My opponent's refutations are unwarranted assumptions.
2. Students will not start flocking to LD because the UIL rejects a chance to expand a student's opportunity, they're more likely to just give up.
3. My opponent's refutation is arrogant at best, rude at worst. Mind you I'm an exceedingly avid LDer myself[9]. I understand the benefits very well, but I also understand the limitations.

Poor Competitors-
1. I have already refuted this turn, also I would like to point out my opponent drops the planet debate argument.
2. CX is a huge part of the NFL. The only advocacy my opponent would be happy with is a world where we debate solely LD.
3. This debate isn't about LD v PF. I would be glad to have it, but my opponent never really warrants that PF shouldn't be accepted by the UIL, just that LD is superior. And I actually agree with this statement. LD is my favorite form of debate, and I love it. But in all my years of experience (4) I've learned it just isn't everyone's cup of tea. My opponent must accept this too, and allow their elitist attitude to stop letting them deprive others from the chance to compete.

I urge a Pro vote.

= Sources =


"In UIL LD the topic only changes once a semester, where PF adopted by the UIL then we can obviously infer that it would follow a similar pattern and the topic would not be changed as often"

Based on this, I am going to have to concede.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3


I must admit it's rather disappointing that my opponent has forfeited this debate.
I ask that all arguments be extended. Vote Pro.


Vote Pro.

I assumed that the UIL and NFL followed the same cycle. Apparently, I was mistaken.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by renji_abarai 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no FF. You don't vote against someone for voting for you.
Vote Placed by LlamaMan 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to con who vote-bombed me in two of my debates
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by cameronl35 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF