Talk:Public forum debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are insertions of strategy, etc., welcome/necessary?
Is the November 2005 resolve supposed to contain the word "never"? I hope I did this right. It's my first contribution.
Contents |
[edit] Need help fast please
can you have more than one argument in your final focus? --Herzog 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Totally, you can do whatever you want except bring up new points. Jeremy
NFL says that there are two rules for FF: 1. You may not bring up new arguments. 2. You may bring up new evidence for old arguments. So, yes, you can have more than one argument. But, you definitely shouldn't. A good FF should convince the judge to vote for a certain side for one undeniable reason.
[edit] June 2006 Nationals Topic
Where did that come from. It's not on the NFL site...and that really shoudn't be released until May. Jeremy
[edit] sources
most information is good but it needs sites. also whether rebutal should be included in the second constructive is region specific BeckBoy Ak 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Research vs. Speaking
The information is good enough, though I disagree somewhat with the controversy of it being more about speaker tone than research. In my personal experience, both the judge and the opposing team will hit you hard for a lack of hard-evidence (backed up by sources), but I won't disagree that good speaking tone and control over enunciation. Wish us luck, we're the top ranked Novice (we're Freshmen) team, and we're on our way to nationals!
69.72.83.171 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Stonedecker Inc.
[edit] strats
I think that per Policy Debate, we might want to include strategies, resources, etc. on this page. Any thoughts? --Lakerdonald 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qualm with a statement on the page.
"Public Forum Debate more recently has developed into a format more similar of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and Policy Debate, in the sense that rather than using the old "coin toss" method, the "pro" and "con" sides are pre-determined."
That's from the article.
This is from the NFL website: "A Public Forum Debate round begins with a flip of a coin between the competing teams to determine your side and speaker position."
If they're using LD-style predetermined matchups, they're violating NFL policy... right? I didn't want to edit the page without putting this out here for discussion to verify that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.135.93 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
- I agree. NFL rules require the coin toss, whereas NCFL, which just adopted PFD this past year, locks sides, God knows why (literally, I suppose). This should be cleared up. (At least "similar of" should become "similar to.") Everyday847 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Due to inconsistency in choosing the sides (some people would go an entire tournament on one side) the NFL has decided to lock sides and thus the coin toss is just to choose who speaks first and second instead of choosing the side and speaker position. AHS DEBATE FOREVER!TaSluder6 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not True. The coin toss is still used to determine side and speaker order. I just debated Pro three times and con once this Saturday; I should know. I'm not sure where people are getting this - obviously some schools are trying to be "innovative" or some such nonsense. Here's from the Public Forum FAQ from NFL: "Q Why not just alternate sides?
A Invitational tournament directors may choose alternation but NFL suggests flipping. Alternating sides locks the pro as first speaker and the con as last speaker. It is much fairer for students to have the choice of side or speaker position. All NFL contests will use the flip."
- Actually, its the discression of the tournament. Most local branches of the league allow for flipping, though some lock it. It varies, also, from league to league, and area to area. We are all right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.228.139 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)