A lot of my opinions have already been expressed as well, but I still wanted to share them here.
(1) How has the additional one minute of Summary speech time affected Public Forum debates?
I really like how the additional minute has shaped the debates. It allows debaters to effectively summarize the debate while also allowing depth to be preserved.
(2) How has the additional one minute of prep time affected Public Forum debates?
To me, this has really leveled the playing field more in PF Debate. This allows debaters that need a touch more time to gather and collect their thoughts to better plan out their speech.
(3) Have the revised evidence paraphrasing rules caused a substantial change in practice? If so, please describe the positive or negative change.
I haven’t seen a change. I would recommend that paraphrasing of evidence remain in practice for a few reasons. As educators, we encourage our students to paraphrase evidence in research type projects. While yes, it allows someone to ‘spin the evidence,’ it also is up to the other teams to call out that use of evidence. It is a reflection of the world we live in that we must teach students to be vigilant about double checking evidence.
(4) Has the revised Grand Crossfire language caused a substantial change in practice? If so, please describe the positive or negative change.
No. I used to feel strongly about keeping Grand Crossfire, but I feel that it has evolved into a time where students bring up something new when it is too late to address it in the debate and allows teams to win with some judges because they don’t respond something that was brought up in Grand Cross. I would be OK with eliminating it at this point.
(5) Are you in favor of the 3 min Summary rule being passed as the official PF event rules? (Yes/No)
(6) Are you in favor of the 3 min prep time rule being passed as the official PF event rules? (Yes/No)