Intro to Public ForumIntro to Public Forum

Meeting on 09/03/2014Meeting on 09/03/2014

Basic FormatBasic Format

Divided into Speaker 1 and 2 Speaker 1 gives the only prepared speech;

a role that requires better presentation

Speaker 2 is all improve; a role that requires good organization and quick thinking

Topics are politically relevant and require a mix of statistics and logic to be argued.

Sept/Oct Topic

Resolved: On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit their local communities.

Divided into Speaker 1 and 2 Speaker 1 gives the only prepared speech;

a role that requires better presentation

Speaker 2 is all improve; a role that requires good organization and quick thinking

Topics are politically relevant and require a mix of statistics and logic to be argued.

Sept/Oct Topic

Resolved: On balance, public subsidies for professional athletic organizations in the United States benefit their local communities.

PF within FGCCFLPF within FGCCFL

The league we compete in most is the Florida Gulf-Coast Catholic Forensics League

If you compete in PF

Competitions are usually one day long with 4 rounds (2 randomized, 2 power-ranked)

About 25 teams have competed each time in the past

You must argue pro and con, FGCCFL will assign your side to you (though other leagues sometimes use a coin-toss to determine which side will be argued)

Everyone is relatively friendly and there is a lot of socializing

PF can be an easy branch to jump into, even if the depth of argument is a bit more extensive than other branches

The league we compete in most is the Florida Gulf-Coast Catholic Forensics League

If you compete in PF

Competitions are usually one day long with 4 rounds (2 randomized, 2 power-ranked)

About 25 teams have competed each time in the past

You must argue pro and con, FGCCFL will assign your side to you (though other leagues sometimes use a coin-toss to determine which side will be argued)

Everyone is relatively friendly and there is a lot of socializing

PF can be an easy branch to jump into, even if the depth of argument is a bit more extensive than other branches

Lesson PlansLesson Plans

Our plans for the next month assume that some number of you are going to North Port at the end of the month

Today: Finish by looking at the different components of a case and flows

Next week: Look at each element of the round in-depth

The week after: Case development (background info, example contentions, briefs, etc.)

Week before competition: Practice refuting and giving speeches

Flexible depending on how many people we get

If only a small group is planning to compete then we will do a mock, for a larger group we will simply practice the individual pieces of a debate without doing an entire mock

Our plans for the next month assume that some number of you are going to North Port at the end of the month

Today: Finish by looking at the different components of a case and flows

Next week: Look at each element of the round in-depth

The week after: Case development (background info, example contentions, briefs, etc.)

Week before competition: Practice refuting and giving speeches

Flexible depending on how many people we get

If only a small group is planning to compete then we will do a mock, for a larger group we will simply practice the individual pieces of a debate without doing an entire mock

Parts of a ContentionParts of a Contention

Contentions: are your main points

Composed of a claim, warrant, and impact

Claim: The overall statement that your contention is making

Warrant: The support that you give your claim (can be both statistical and logical)

Impact: Why your claim, if true, matters. It is what happens because of your claim. This is the only reason that your contentions will matter in a round: if you can prove a larger impact on the future or the issue

Contentions: are your main points

Composed of a claim, warrant, and impact

Claim: The overall statement that your contention is making

Warrant: The support that you give your claim (can be both statistical and logical)

Impact: Why your claim, if true, matters. It is what happens because of your claim. This is the only reason that your contentions will matter in a round: if you can prove a larger impact on the future or the issue

Sample ContentionSample Contention

Contention two: Extent of NSA usefulness

The biggest flaw with advocating for domestic surveillance is that it cannot be shown to be effective. Multiple senators have already addressed the fact that there are no known, detailed cases in which the metadata collected through phone records or the use of the NSA’s PRISM program has led directly to the prevention of a terrorist attack. Examples cited could be prevented via traditional, existing means of surveillance that are significantly less intrusive on the average American citizen and far less costly. Furthermore, terrorism itself is on a downward trend.

The US Department of State reported the number of US citizens killed globally as a result of terrorism in 2011- only 17. Similarly, in 2008, only 33 died. Compared to dozens of other causes of death, terrorism is incredibly negligible as an issue in the first place. The NSA has never been shown to prevent a real attack- never shown to actually save any lives. Even if it had been, rather than spending 10 to 20 billion on less than 50 lives, potentially sacrificing a billion dollars on one life, the money could go to countless other efforts that would have a tangible effect on US lives. The US Center for Disease Control cites the deaths due to heart disease as nearly 600,000 a year. This is just one example of a place where this money could be better spent.

It is entirely ludicrous to place so much money, endanger a bursting new industry, and threaten public perception of the government for the sake of preventing an issue that doesn’t stack up to almost any other threat. For these reasons, we negate the resolution.

Contention two: Extent of NSA usefulness

The biggest flaw with advocating for domestic surveillance is that it cannot be shown to be effective. Multiple senators have already addressed the fact that there are no known, detailed cases in which the metadata collected through phone records or the use of the NSA’s PRISM program has led directly to the prevention of a terrorist attack. Examples cited could be prevented via traditional, existing means of surveillance that are significantly less intrusive on the average American citizen and far less costly. Furthermore, terrorism itself is on a downward trend.

The US Department of State reported the number of US citizens killed globally as a result of terrorism in 2011- only 17. Similarly, in 2008, only 33 died. Compared to dozens of other causes of death, terrorism is incredibly negligible as an issue in the first place. The NSA has never been shown to prevent a real attack- never shown to actually save any lives. Even if it had been, rather than spending 10 to 20 billion on less than 50 lives, potentially sacrificing a billion dollars on one life, the money could go to countless other efforts that would have a tangible effect on US lives. The US Center for Disease Control cites the deaths due to heart disease as nearly 600,000 a year. This is just one example of a place where this money could be better spent.

It is entirely ludicrous to place so much money, endanger a bursting new industry, and threaten public perception of the government for the sake of preventing an issue that doesn’t stack up to almost any other threat. For these reasons, we negate the resolution.

BreakdownBreakdown

Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms (November 2013).Claim: The biggest flaw with advocating for domestic surveillance is that it cannot be shown to be effective.

Warrants:

Multiple senators have already addressed the fact that there are no known, detailed cases in which the metadata collected through phone records or the use of the NSA’s PRISM program has led directly to the prevention of a terrorist attack.

Examples cited could be prevented via traditional, existing means of surveillance that are significantly less intrusive on the average American citizen and far less costly.

Terrorism itself is on a downward trend.

The US Department of State reported the number of US citizens killed globally as a result of terrorism in 2011- only 17. Similarly, in 2008, only 33 died. Compared to dozens of other causes of death, terrorism is incredibly negligible as an issue in the first place.

The NSA has never been shown to prevent a real attack- never shown to actually save any lives.

Impact:

Rather than spending 10 to 20 billion on less than 50 lives, potentially sacrificing a billion dollars on one life, the money could go to countless other efforts that would have a tangible effect on US lives.

It is entirely ludicrous to place so much money, endanger a bursting new industry, and threaten public perception of the government for the sake of preventing an issue that doesn’t stack up to almost any other threat.

 

Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms (November 2013).Claim: The biggest flaw with advocating for domestic surveillance is that it cannot be shown to be effective.

Warrants:

Multiple senators have already addressed the fact that there are no known, detailed cases in which the metadata collected through phone records or the use of the NSA’s PRISM program has led directly to the prevention of a terrorist attack.

Examples cited could be prevented via traditional, existing means of surveillance that are significantly less intrusive on the average American citizen and far less costly.

Terrorism itself is on a downward trend.

The US Department of State reported the number of US citizens killed globally as a result of terrorism in 2011- only 17. Similarly, in 2008, only 33 died. Compared to dozens of other causes of death, terrorism is incredibly negligible as an issue in the first place.

The NSA has never been shown to prevent a real attack- never shown to actually save any lives.

Impact:

Rather than spending 10 to 20 billion on less than 50 lives, potentially sacrificing a billion dollars on one life, the money could go to countless other efforts that would have a tangible effect on US lives.

It is entirely ludicrous to place so much money, endanger a bursting new industry, and threaten public perception of the government for the sake of preventing an issue that doesn’t stack up to almost any other threat.

 

FlowingFlowing

Flowing refers to the note-taking style of a round

Each debater will develop their own flowing style, but the good debaters usually have a couple of elements within their flows:

Organized into pieces for: definitions and contentions

Separate, divided sections for their contentions and your refutation

Different colors to keep thoughts more organized (this can actually be really helpful when you are giving a speech and glancing at your notes rather than reading them)

Written in pen

Smoother writing, no smearing

Easier to see than pencil

As funny as it may sound, you can actually write faster if you use a pen instead of a pencil

Legal pads

Flowing refers to the note-taking style of a round

Each debater will develop their own flowing style, but the good debaters usually have a couple of elements within their flows:

Organized into pieces for: definitions and contentions

Separate, divided sections for their contentions and your refutation

Different colors to keep thoughts more organized (this can actually be really helpful when you are giving a speech and glancing at your notes rather than reading them)

Written in pen

Smoother writing, no smearing

Easier to see than pencil

As funny as it may sound, you can actually write faster if you use a pen instead of a pencil

Legal pads

Flowing: General NotesFlowing: General Notes

Do NOT try to get everything your opponents say written down Only the most important points You will learn over time (and pretty quickly) which facts are essential

For each point that you are writing down: use anchor words/phrases Only write down enough to refresh your memory of what they said Writing more will slow you down substantially since your paper will be overcrowded and you

will have to read more to remember what you wanted to say

Write down only statistics that you plan to talk about (some won’t be significant and they aren’t worth mentioning again)

Flows are supposed to be glanced at while speaking, not read verbatim Try to write an outline that will guide you through your speeches Rely on your mind and your voice when speaking (takes some time to get perfect, but is

easier than you would think)

Do NOT try to get everything your opponents say written down Only the most important points You will learn over time (and pretty quickly) which facts are essential

For each point that you are writing down: use anchor words/phrases Only write down enough to refresh your memory of what they said Writing more will slow you down substantially since your paper will be overcrowded and you

will have to read more to remember what you wanted to say

Write down only statistics that you plan to talk about (some won’t be significant and they aren’t worth mentioning again)

Flows are supposed to be glanced at while speaking, not read verbatim Try to write an outline that will guide you through your speeches Rely on your mind and your voice when speaking (takes some time to get perfect, but is

easier than you would think)

Questions?Questions?

“Do we have to stay with the same partner we choose for the first debate?”

No. Nothing is set-in-stone, you can switch branches, partner, speaker order, etc. when you want.

“How will there be enough room for everyone at a competition?”

The board will renounce seniority for Novices for local competitions, though not for nationals and national qualifiers.

“Do we have to stay with the same partner we choose for the first debate?”

No. Nothing is set-in-stone, you can switch branches, partner, speaker order, etc. when you want.

“How will there be enough room for everyone at a competition?”

The board will renounce seniority for Novices for local competitions, though not for nationals and national qualifiers.