Jump to content
STADB9

Save Kansas PFD!

Recommended Posts

I'm reposting this from the nfl discussion because it seems rather relevant:

<<What exactly does this debate mean? What can come out of it? If someone wins that resources are key to debate success is someone going to take the trophy and cut it in half and only give them the part that is designated for talent?

 

People: different teams have different resources. The name of the game is to win using what you have. Wanky criticisms, pics, and just smart argumentation have consistently been able to level the playing field for teams that have fewer resources.

 

Good teams don't complain about how other teams have more opportunities, or better stuff, the work harder and succeed more.>>

 

In addition to that, I personally believe that PFD is anti-educational. The experiences I have had is that for many debaters, PFD is the giant black whole that sucks them into the twilight zone that is lazyiness. In many states, a kid debates his novice year against a varsity team and gets the beat down. The novice debater gets so discouraged that he starts doing pfd because it (a) requires less work and (B) is mostly based on natural, persuasive skill. I think it would be hard for anyone to argue that policy gets the benefits of persuasion (even speed debate involves it) and that less research and argumentation is better for education. This is also a reason that the structure of Kansas' rather large policy pool helps it maintain a larger number of policy debaters than pfders - there's no alternative to policy in the fall and we ease people into some of the "scarier" parts of policy debate.

 

I know most of these arguments are repetitive, I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that I agreed in many ways with what was being said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The quality v. quantity argument is not true. When you get into a debate and people are reading 4 or 5 bad cards to your one good it is often too time consuming to get through each one. Its called being spread out of the round, it all happened to us when we were first wading into the deep end of the debate pool and hopefully you have been able to return the favor to some other team along the way. I have seen it happen time and time again good does not always trump quantity.

 

I'm not sure why you really want to argue that quantity beats quality in a policy debate round. Sure, it's possible to spread someone out of a round, but only if they're not as good as you are, or totally lack evidence on multiple arguments that you read. It's almost never possible to win a round when reading a lot of bad arguments with equally matched teams.

 

A good example of this, even from a slow round: back on civil liberties, we would read one big, good harms card for our slow aff. it took about 3+ minutes to read, but it was worth it because people would unload harms evidence against us, and we'd just cross-apply the one card and explain warrants. Even in slow rounds, good cards beat multiple not as good cards. Look to John's examples for why this is true in fast rounds too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make my response concise by sticking to the arguments I introduced.

 

On to the issues raised by others starting with Cook’s arguments. The quality v. quantity argument is not true. When you get into a debate and people are reading 4 or 5 bad cards to your one good it is often too time consuming to get through each one. Its called being spread out of the round, it all happened to us when we were first wading into the deep end of the debate pool and hopefully you have been able to return the favor to some other team along the way. I have seen it happen time and time again good does not always trump quantity.

 

If you can't answer 4 bad cards with a single card with much better warrants, you're not good at debate and will lose the event in question no matter what resources you are afforded. Good evidence doesn't always trump quantity because there are always bad debaters at every level (too many examples here to fathom).

 

Kritiks, critiques, K’s or what ever you want to call them. You call the K the great equalizer; I call them a double edged sword. No argument has been done more damage to the community than this one. Not only this, but they are just a temporary solution to the problem. Sure Nietzsche works this year, but it’s just a matter of time before the right cards are found, handed out at every camp, and then the argument is useless. Baudrillard, Spanos, Foucault, etc. they have all come and gone and come again. Every time the return however they are never as powerful as they once were. Not to mention, the K decrease education by giving the neg a position they can recycle each year instead of doing new research.

 

You make three arguments here ("hurts debate, temporary, and hurts education)

1. "No argument has been done more damage to the community"

Warrantless. This swipe is probably done in the vein of "it detracts us from policy issues" arguments. If you can't justify the position you take, then you should lose. This is a pretty solid agreement amongst people in the debate community. If you can justify what you do or the logic that makes your plan a good idea, then you should be just fine. There is nothing unfair about forcing a team to defend their ideas.

 

2. "Temporary solution"

Temporary must mean an incredibly longer time than I imagine. I can't seem to find that card from camp that made teams running Foucault start losing in droves or which made NEGs too scared to read Shapiro. It is much more likely that, instead of your seemingly impossible K-slayer scenario, that K debates pan out (in terms of evidence and research) like most other debates where team attempts to find evidenciary support for their position. But then again, maybe Andover is sitting on a goldmine of devastating K answers the rest of the debate world has yet to stumble upon.

 

You say it weakens the argument each time a new card in response is found. Find me a policy argument that doesn't mirror this. Also, because of the MUCH shorter timeframe and prolific nature of political writings, it's much more likely that your disad is going to be good for 2 tournaments tops before someone finds a non-unique that makes your argument untenable. Debating Nietzsche or Heidegger doesn't really present the same rush to check CNN for the updates.

 

Also, scholarly debate about philosophy often works bidirectionally meaning as the supporting literature base grows, so does the opposition. See the enormous Lacanians vs. Deleuzians debate going on for proof of this. (Alex Bonnet and I have both waded through hundreds of pages of this shit and it just shows no sign of stopping on either side).

 

3. "Hurts education because NEG recycles their position"

A few responses:

I'm not such a huge fan of breadth over depth arguments. Recycling the same argument means that while you maintain the same literature base, you can spin these arguments in new creative ways. Even just a single philosopher in the hands of a competent K debater can become a piece of clay lending itself to become explosive as of the 1NC.

 

But to be fair, this may negate some topic specific education neg teams might otherwise garner. As we're all speaking as Kansans (something I have very little time left to do), you and I both know the nature of the judging pool at literally every tournament in Kansas demands flexible negative research. You don't really garner topic specific education in the round so as long as you still have to do the other research, it's functionally the same.

 

All the same, I'll still take a deep K debate over a very shallow 'Yes'-'No' kind of policy debate any day. Remember that the education from debate doesn't come directly from clash, but from the attempted resolution of that clash. When your evidence says yes and mine says no, no one has learned anything except that two people have opposing opinions. The warrants present the opportunity for educational exchange meaning debate has to maintain some amount of depth to retain value.

 

Also, your camp evidence argument and your recycling argument contradict. According to you either Ks get the beat down when better aff cards are found each year or teams recycle their arguments year after year. More probably, a few teams recycle arguments and a few people cut some good cards on both side of the debate.

 

As for your arguments about handbooks and processed evidence production:

I honestly cannot imagine the last time a card was gleaned from a handbook to an educational end. Not only does using handbooks make a debater lazy, it dissuades them from cutting arguments along a different tangent, and it is generally very very low in quality.

 

Before every handbook-ordering coach and debate junkie jumps on me about handbooks, yes my same arguments apply to camp evidence you didn't cut. I just have a unique hate for most handbooks because 90% of them are done without regard for quality and the evidence lacks a lot of warrants. I also hold particular contempt for those who use these as a jumping off point of the season. They should be used as a supplement when you are crunched, not as a set of training wheels which you'll inevitably become tied to. Do exploratory research, come up with innovative approaches to the topic, do your own research and if that fails.

 

None of my handbook claims apply to the Skoglund brothers' handbook which was done with a particular eye fro quality and appropriate quantity of evidence and which can be purchased by talking to either of them directly.

 

Here's an idea: Debate starts at home on Muse, JSTOR, and Lexis; steal an account, cut your own evidence, and start actually debating.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The quality v. quantity argument is not true. When you get into a debate and people are reading 4 or 5 bad cards to your one good it is often too time consuming to get through each one. Its called being spread out of the round, it all happened to us when we were first wading into the deep end of the debate pool and hopefully you have been able to return the favor to some other team along the way. I have seen it happen time and time again good does not always trump quantity.

OK, this is literally one of the most annoying arguments about policy debate ever (not a bash against you I say it's annoying because it's made often not because of the content of the argument). The solution to being spread is really simple, get faster. Seriously no one just walks into a debate with the innate ability to speak at 600 wpm and if a team spreads you its probably because they practiced getting faster and you didn't. Also, speed isn't a prerequisite to winning a round. Unless the debate you're in is horrible, contains no warranted arguments and is just "extend our Miller in 93 evidence because they dropped it so we win our link", efficient debating can overcome any spread. The best example I can think of is John and Aaron. Neither of them are the fastest debaters in the world and I've both debated with John and seen him debate teams that were faster than he was and they beat them simply because their arguments were intelligent, they had better warrants, they were more efficient, and they didn't turn the round into a card war.

 

No argument has been done more damage to the community than this one. Not only this, but they are just a temporary solution to the problem. Sure Nietzsche works this year, but it’s just a matter of time before the right cards are found, handed out at every camp, and then the argument is useless. Baudrillard, Spanos, Foucault, etc. they have all come and gone and come again. Every time the return however they are never as powerful as they once were. Not to mention, the K decrease education by giving the neg a position they can recycle each year instead of doing new research.

Oldest argument against the K ever and also just plain wrong. First, before anyone responds to this argument that K's have done more damage to the community than any other argument I'd like you to warrant this claim (I understand that's not necessary in PFD but this is a policy debate website). Literally only the worst K debaters fit this criterion. Just like a novice who reads a disad without a link or breaks down in cross-x about impact analysis, bad K debate like the above only happens with bad K debaters. As long as the people reading their arguments have taken to the time to understand the literature and make nuanced arguments that specifically engage the aff and the topic K debate solves all your offense both here and above.

 

Last, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on your more education in PFD thing. The thing that makes it so PFD will ALWAYS lose on education is simple. The PFD resolution IS your aff and IS your ONLY aff. What this means is that literally every debate you have in PFD is against the same aff with different advantages (and sometimes not even that). What this means is that at best you have 9 affs in an entire year (if you debate year round). So compare nine to hundreds and tell me who comes out on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the K is nowhere near as bad as FSPEC. seriously. which is more of a PFD type argument, anyway. and i don't need a warrant for this.. i'm posting in the spirit of the thread creator.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that I'm on the fence when it comes to PFD. I do see flaws with the event, just as I see flaws with policy debate.

 

The problem with this discussion is that it is too narrowly focussed. The assumption is that PFD will take policy's place. Since that is not possible in Kansas, all the arguementation evaluating policy as better than PFD is irrelevant.

 

The issue is would we rather have students participating in PFD or nothing at all. If PFD is an avenue to get kids involved in debate at any level, then it is a good thing. To those who claim that PFD is non-educational, are you really claiming that a participant's persuasion skills become worse for the practice? How about their ability to think on their feet when asked a direct question?

 

Personnally, I'm pretty proud of Kansas debate, and it upsets me that Kansas will never likely be strong in any debate but policy. Many of our best speakers qualify in debate and those left over compete for LD, Congress, OO, and PFD slots. What would it be like if 4N6 season was in the fall and debate in the spring? Would policy debaters still have this arrogant opinion that my event is more important than everyone else's?

 

What's wrong with wanting to be competitive in more than just policy?

 

P.S. It took a lot for me to break down and actually join to post. If you don't like my opinions, then blame Andrew and Sarah for getting me to pay attention to cross-x for more than mocking all of you (I guess now I'm being mocked somewhere out there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me start by saying that I'm on the fence when it comes to PFD. I do see flaws with the event, just as I see flaws with policy debate.

 

The problem with this discussion is that it is too narrowly focussed. The assumption is that PFD will take policy's place. Since that is not possible in Kansas, all the arguementation evaluating policy as better than PFD is irrelevant.

 

The issue is would we rather have students participating in PFD or nothing at all. If PFD is an avenue to get kids involved in debate at any level, then it is a good thing. To those who claim that PFD is non-educational, are you really claiming that a participant's persuasion skills become worse for the practice? How about their ability to think on their feet when asked a direct question?

 

Personnally, I'm pretty proud of Kansas debate, and it upsets me that Kansas will never likely be strong in any debate but policy. Many of our best speakers qualify in debate and those left over compete for LD, Congress, OO, and PFD slots. What would it be like if 4N6 season was in the fall and debate in the spring? Would policy debaters still have this arrogant opinion that my event is more important than everyone else's?

 

What's wrong with wanting to be competitive in more than just policy?

 

P.S. It took a lot for me to break down and actually join to post. If you don't like my opinions, then blame Andrew and Sarah for getting me to pay attention to cross-x for more than mocking all of you (I guess now I'm being mocked somewhere out there).

 

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HE BROKE DOWN!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The assumption is that PFD will take policy's place. Since that is not possible in Kansas, all the arguementation evaluating policy as better than PFD is irrelevant.

The reason, I think, why alot of people here are taking this position is not the death of Kansas debate but the death of debate everywhere else. This is a very real problem in other states as people continually shift out of policy for pfd. I think the idea that because it's not possible for this to happen in Kansas so we shouldn't address it is fundamentally flawed. We need to stop addressing the rest of the country as some alien entity that does debate that is clearly impure and destructive to everything "we" stand for. We should stand in solidarity with the other states and styles to address the particular crisis that it is afflicting them. And yest it is a crisis. To quote a coach that I've talked to this summer about the issue, "The reason I don't like PFD is because I see literally no value that the activity provides that cannot be better provided by other activities, especially CX debate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would it be like if 4N6 season was in the fall and debate in the spring? Would policy debaters still have this arrogant opinion that my event is more important than everyone else's?

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

 

Best post in the thread.

 

...fundamentally flawed...

 

Did you really just say that? But Alex's point here is a good one. While I think it's definitely better to do PFD than to do nothing, it's also probably better to do policy than PFD. And it's impossible to argue that policy doesn't lose kids to PFD who would do policy if PFD didn't exist. It's being proven to some degree now in Kansas, and has been in other states, that PFD has caused fewer people to do policy debate. Incidentally, only time will tell what kind of impact PFD will really have on policy in Kansas, because in other states, there are other factors contributing to the flee from policy debate which are avoided by the strong local circuit here.

 

I'll reiterate that it's not my opinion that there isn't any value in PFD, just that basically everything you can get out of PFD, you can get out of policy. So to the students that want to do PFD... why not do both policy in the fall and then do PFD in the winter and spring? (And not go to the qualifier in policy, so I don't get nailed with that later). That sounds like a win-win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(And not go to the qualifier in policy, so I don't get nailed with that later). That sounds like a win-win.

 

That's the key flaw with the NFL system. I personally don't consider that a win-win particularly because I got kinda screwed over one year on this. I experienced this when my junior year my partner and I had experienced some success and the other good debater in our program had also been doing well. Well it came down to qualifier and the question was who out of the 3 would be the 2 to go together? Well in the end my partner and the good guy decided that it would be easier for them to just do PFD because they had made it the year before just screwing around. So i was forced to attend the qualifier with someone I had never debated with before. Now we did end up getting into 2 go rounds and narrowly missing qualifying. But the fact is that 2 of the best policy debaters from my school stopped working in policy because they knew PFD would be easier to qualify in, because it required much less work. My school over the past 4 years has gone all season without having PFD team then sent teams to the qualifier and shut it out 2 years in a row and had qualifiers the other 2 years. That shows you just how "valuable" PFD is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Best post in the thread.

 

 

 

Did you really just say that? But Alex's point here is a good one. While I think it's definitely better to do PFD than to do nothing, it's also probably better to do policy than PFD. And it's impossible to argue that policy doesn't lose kids to PFD who would do policy if PFD didn't exist. It's being proven to some degree now in Kansas, and has been in other states, that PFD has caused fewer people to do policy debate. Incidentally, only time will tell what kind of impact PFD will really have on policy in Kansas, because in other states, there are other factors contributing to the flee from policy debate which are avoided by the strong local circuit here.

 

I'll reiterate that it's not my opinion that there isn't any value in PFD, just that basically everything you can get out of PFD, you can get out of policy. So to the students that want to do PFD... why not do both policy in the fall and then do PFD in the winter and spring? (And not go to the qualifier in policy, so I don't get nailed with that later). That sounds like a win-win.

OK now if you would read earlier posts that i made i certainly agree that policy debate is better than PFD, but will you please explain how PFD is some how detracting from policy. there is little to no season cross over and to quote bill Robinson, an icon in Kansas debate, "forensics season is just warm up for policy. you would be an idiot if you did not improve your speaking skills by participating in that damn forensics".

 

I definitely agree that it could have tremendous impact in other states where the seasons are not separate, but in Kansas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK now if you would read earlier posts that i made i certainly agree that policy debate is better than PFD, but will you please explain how PFD is some how detracting from policy. there is little to no season cross over and to quote bill Robinson, an icon in Kansas debate, "forensics season is just warm up for policy. you would be an idiot if you did not improve your speaking skills by participating in that damn forensics".

 

I definitely agree that it could have tremendous impact in other states where the seasons are not separate, but in Kansas?

 

He's kind of right. You don't find kids using first semester time to travel PFD rather than policy. This is the only way PFD would detract from Policy commitment.

 

With the seasons split as it is it is not PFD taking numbers from policy. It's a lot of other issues. We can all list reasons off the top of our head why kids don't travel policy: time commitment needed to be successful, other interests (sports, band, drama, etc.), the cost (camps, food to travel with, etc.), lack of social support (omg, you're a debater??!!?), lack of school support (principle: "oh, there's a debate team. uh, go get 'em." - talk to hutch about a lack of school and social support), and on and on. Let's face it, people don't love debate like they love other stuff. They aren't willing to commit.

 

That being said, I think PFD is great for some kids. You can account a lot of the reasons policy doesn't have growing numbers with PFD (doesn't cost much, doesn't take much time, doesn't need a ton of administrative/social suport). Some kids can't be dedicated to do policy, so I think we can agree that at least it's better for them to get some type of debate exposure through PFD.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's kind of right. You don't find kids using first semester time to travel PFD rather than policy. This is the only way PFD would detract from Policy commitment.

 

With the seasons split as it is it is not PFD taking numbers from policy. It's a lot of other issues. We can all list reasons off the top of our head why kids don't travel policy: time commitment needed to be successful, other interests (sports, band, drama, etc.), the cost (camps, food to travel with, etc.), lack of social support (omg, you're a debater??!!?), lack of school support (principle: "oh, there's a debate team. uh, go get 'em." - talk to hutch about a lack of school and social support), and on and on. Let's face it, people don't love debate like they love other stuff. They aren't willing to commit.

 

That being said, I think PFD is great for some kids. You can account a lot of the reasons policy doesn't have growing numbers with PFD (doesn't cost much, doesn't take much time, doesn't need a ton of administrative/social suport). Some kids can't be dedicated to do policy, so I think we can agree that at least it's better for them to get some type of debate exposure through PFD.

I would have to agree with everything Bret said. Especially the bit on PFD simply being better for some kids, but the point still stands that you can certainly do both and even if you start in PFD it does not bar you from policy. It simply maybe another avenue kids take that leads them into the the entire realm of debate as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK now if you would read earlier posts that i made i certainly agree that policy debate is better than PFD, but will you please explain how PFD is some how detracting from policy. there is little to no season cross over and to quote bill Robinson, an icon in Kansas debate, "forensics season is just warm up for policy. you would be an idiot if you did not improve your speaking skills by participating in that damn forensics".

 

I definitely agree that it could have tremendous impact in other states where the seasons are not separate, but in Kansas?

 

Good point. If everyone who does PFD also does policy, then PFD doesn't detract from the number of people doing policy. I don't have the numbers to back that up either way, but you make a good point.

 

And I've read every post in the thread, so I've read your earlier posts. The joys of being a bored college student back at home.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good point. If everyone who does PFD also does policy, then PFD doesn't detract from the number of people doing policy. I don't have the numbers to back that up either way, but you make a good point.

 

And I've read every post in the thread, so I've read your earlier posts. The joys of being a bored college student back at home.

well thank you.

 

oh and you are not the only one who reads every post, so don't feel lonely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again remember what I said about how we need to stop thinking about Kansas as a seperate entity. Even if PFD doesn't hurt policy numbers in Kansas, as a whole to the entire body of debate in the country it is literally viral and is destroying policy debate as an activity. To do this the way we do in lay debate. In the world of your advocacy where PFD is ok, Kansas and Texas are the only states with Policy Debate but everyone has half hour PF rounds where no one learns anything, everyone yells at each other like a baboon in the "grand crossfire", and 1 minute speeches reign supreme. In the world of our advocacy where PFD is not ok, sophomores that get smacked around in policy stick it out and become better and in some cases amazing junior and senior year, we all learn alot, everyone has fun, and the most valuable academic activity in the country is vibrant as opposed to dead almost nationwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again remember what I said about how we need to stop thinking about Kansas as a seperate entity. Even if PFD doesn't hurt policy numbers in Kansas, as a whole to the entire body of debate in the country it is literally viral and is destroying policy debate as an activity. To do this the way we do in lay debate. In the world of your advocacy where PFD is ok, Kansas and Texas are the only states with Policy Debate but everyone has half hour PF rounds where no one learns anything, everyone yells at each other like a baboon in the "grand crossfire", and 1 minute speeches reign supreme. In the world of our advocacy where PFD is not ok, sophomores that get smacked around in policy stick it out and become better and in some cases amazing junior and senior year, we all learn alot, everyone has fun, and the most valuable academic activity in the country is vibrant as opposed to dead almost nationwide.

 

In the world of your advocacy, policy is dead or dying in many places. PFD is a symptom, not a cause. If PFD didn't exist, those sophomores would be doing LD or mock trial or something.

 

PFD is here to stay. A more fruitful discussion would be ways to improve the educational and competitive value of the event instead of complaining about how much it sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PFD is here to stay. A more fruitful discussion would be ways to improve the educational and competitive value of the event instead of complaining about how much it sucks.

I don't think that it's necessarily true that those sophomores would transfer to LD or Mock trial. While it's true that some will (and that's inevitable) the reason why I think PFD is uniquely damaging is because it's particular format and the way the activity is done is basically like a policy debate light. My argument, which has yet to be responded to by anyone, is that PFD doesn't have a single benefit that isn't solved for better by policy debate. However, due to the particular nature of policy debate, often times sophomores or those coming out of their novice year have to debate those that are in their Junior or Senior year and they lose (sometimes hard and sometimes often). For those in this particular position PFD represents a tempting out, it's an activity that is much like policy debate but requires less skill and effort due to its particular format. I think that rather than losing our second year policy debaters to an inferior activity we should eliminate that activity and encourage those that are discouraged by some losses sophomore year to stick with it and get better.

Here are my challenges to all those on the side of PFD here:

1) Give me a benefit of PFD that isn't solved better by policy debate.

2) Prove to me that PFD isn't just the less effort version of policy.

3) Tell me why those doing PFD can't do policy.

4) Answer this question. If these other activities aren't the problem then what is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are my challenges to all those on the side of PFD here:

1) Give me a benefit of PFD that isn't solved better by policy debate.

 

NO SPEEDZ DUH

 

2) Prove to me that PFD isn't just the less effort version of policy.

 

WE HAVE 23452435 DIFF TOPIKS K?!1

 

3) Tell me why those doing PFD can't do policy.

 

CUZ

 

4) Answer this question. If these other activities aren't the problem then what is?

 

POLICEE IS DUH PROBLUM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...everyone yells at each other like a baboon in the "grand crossfire"...

ziegler and a certain lawrence high team can attest that this practice gets you absolutely nowhere in a debate round in front of certain judges... or, a certain judge, as the case may be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there is no reason that Kansans need to "stand in solidarity" with policy debaters in other parts of the country. "Standing in solidarity" doesn't work in your kritiks and it doesn't work here. :) . Why should I care if there are no policy debaters in Oregan?

 

Second, policy debate has been failing in other parts of the country for a long time. The funny thing is, it was the hard core policy debaters that killed it. The kids who walked out of the room saying the judge didn't understand their 3rd perm on the pic when they were reading 600 wpm, they got their wish and their activity associations passed requirements on judges to be "certified". Expensive, paid college kids became the norm, who by the way are just as biased as that lay judge. Can't afford to send 20 teams out if entry fees are too high. Sorry, but it's that sexy national circut, where expensive travel is also the norm, that made it too expensive to have debate squads of more than a couple teams. But hey, you're really educating those 4 kids...

 

I don't think that it's necessarily true that those sophomores would transfer to LD or Mock trial.

 

Unfortunately, I agree. They won't do LD or Mock trial. They'll just quit. even in Kansas where debate is healthy, 50% of kids quit each year. If only 35% quit debate, because 15% started doing the easier PFD, then you'd say they were stolen, but I'd say we gained kids.

 

I've heard the horror stories that a good kid took the lazy way out and did PFD. If the kid is that lazy, what's to say he doesn't quit altogether? Most of my closest friends weren't 4 year debaters, and if you ask them why they quit, they'll tell you that policy was too demanding and too extreme to be good. PFD might have kept them involved.

 

Here are my challenges to all those on the side of PFD here:

1) Give me a benefit of PFD that isn't solved better by policy debate.

2) Prove to me that PFD isn't just the less effort version of policy.

3) Tell me why those doing PFD can't do policy.

4) Answer this question. If these other activities aren't the problem then what is?

 

In response to your 1st, I have two responses:

1st, in some areas (thinking of the nation) policy debate no longer teaches the ability to communicate persuasively to lay people. That is perhaps the greatest education from policy debate, and in those areas it is only happening through PFD.

2nd, PFD is less extreme than policy, so for kids who don't want to do policy or quit policy, it is an option.

 

In response to your 2nd, I have three responses:

1st, so what if it is just less effort? What is the negative impact of less work?

2nd, the fact that Kansans look at PFD as watered down policy is why Kansans suck at PFD. From what I can tell, the rest of the nation treats it as a form of debate more grounded in persuasion and few, powerful arguements.

3rd, the only way we can prove it to you is get you in a couple of good PFD rounds. What do you say?

 

In response to your 3rd, I have two responses:

1st, In Kansas they can and should. Elsewhere, PFD could be that gateway for kids who want more to do policy.

2nd, I don't remember a state champion in PFD, so technically, kids could travel to do PFD instead of policy. The fact that no one is doing that, pretty much shows that PFD is not stealing from policy.

 

In response to your 4th, I have two responses:

1st, see above.

2nd, where is the hard numbers? Where is the causality? Debate numbers were decreasing, that is why NFL created PFD. Anadotal evidence aside, I haven't heard an internal link that PFD is decreasing policy numbers resulting in this loss of education.

 

There are plenty of reasons not to like PFD, but I haven't heard any of them in this thread.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

johnnyb, I think you are proving Alex's point.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ziegler and a certain lawrence high team can attest that this practice gets you absolutely nowhere in a debate round in front of certain judges... or, a certain judge, as the case may be

 

An appeal to the KS Community: Chris Sevvedge's dad hates yelling. Just keep this in mind. He isn't afraid to stop a round, even at the grand grand CFL Qualifyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...