Please answer the following questions:
(1) How has the additional one minute of Summary speech time affected Public Forum debates?
(2) How has the additional one minute of prep time affected Public Forum debates?
(3) Have the revised evidence paraphrasing rules caused a substantial change in practice? If so, please describe the positive or negative change.
(4) Has the revised Grand Crossfire language caused a substantial change in practice? If so, please describe the positive or negative change.
(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)
1. great – not as rushed, more nuancing is afforded
2. good – speeches are more polished and strategic decisions are more intentional
3. No substantial change. Students are still paraphrasing articles or several paragraphs (in different locations). The trend is to have 20-30 cards in constructive – and obviously, those authors cannot be paraphrased in any way that accurately reflects their intent. Lots and lots of cherry picking for certain phrases that can be misappropriated in a link chain … or stats from a small study being ripped from context and used to “prove” a causal link. Paraphrasing needs to go. Sure it will do damage to argument complexity, but the damage currently being done is worse both b/c the argumentation – although “complex” – is generally based on a super rocky foundation and, most importantly, b/c it incentivizes students to make poor ethical choices in order to remain competitive.
4. Never had a problem with grand cx. It was actually the most compelling part of all PF.