2011 South Dakota High School Debate "A" Public Forum

[thesparkman97]

organ-EYE-zations

[Sipsumsurp]

And if you would like I can attack your whole god damn mini case but I have a life and stop the hell debating outside rounds GET A LIFE

[dontuenvyme]

@Sipsumsurp Nigga please, i got a tattoo that said "DEBATE 4 LIFE" for a reason.

[Sipsumsurp]

BTW PENGUIN DUDE IM A FUCKING HUMAN OUTSIDE OF DEBATE I DON'T WALK THE FUCK AROUND WITH WARRANTS GOD DAMN

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp don't be a troll its really sad that you've come to this. This is what you say A. The only way to know what a warrant is recquires not having a life other than debate. B. Several attempts to troll not gonna list all of them. C. PF is physically fit. D We are better because we can appeal to parent judges. First you didn't respond to a single thing me or cheng said so all arguments are turned. Learn to write an overview.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp don't make PF look bad now that you have to resort to trolling it's honestly quite sad. Next you blantanly admit we CX researches seven times as much, however that just recquires more time budget. Your sporting argument cannot weigh. Next all great arguments have warrants they don't take two hours to create. If you have only a claim you need to work on your argument. Also who cares if your similar to real life, that dosen't mean thats good. Policy increases education thus outw.

[Sipsumsurp]

Policy Kid: "Public forum is so stupid! I'll try it at my next tournament and win!"

*After first PF round*

Policy Kid: "OW MY ASS!!!! I GOT RAPED IN THE ASSSSS! I DONT GET IT! I MINDLESS SPEWED RESEARCH AND MY OPPONENTS USED LOGIC AND BASIC INTELLIGENCE ACCESSIBLE TO AN EVERYDAY AMERICAN! HOW DID THEY WIN???"

[Sipsumsurp]

Side Note: PF kids might also be able to do sports and other athletic things because we dont research for 5 hours a day on the growing patterns of corn for the production of corn ethanol or some other policy shit. MEANING...we can probably kick your ass physically outside a round.

[Sipsumsurp]

Public Forum is meant to be a spectator event, meaning, unlike LD or Policy, you can't spam your judge and talk at 6 words a second. Policy, LD, and Congress kids usually diss PF, but end up getting raped when they try it because a normal person (i.e. your potential PF judge) doesnt want to see a short sweaty kid in a sweater vest talk about nuclear war caused by helping penguins and all other sorts of batshit not relevant to reality at a speed unfathonable to the human ear.

[Sipsumsurp]

A relatively newer type of debate that gets dissed on by policy and LDer kids primarily because in Public Forum, you debate about current events, don't wear sweater vests, and actually have to use logic, sources, and speaking SKILLs to PERSUADE your judge.

[TheNinjaFilipino]

For you people bashing on PF. I did PF for a year and CX for a year and counting. I will admit that PF better promotes quick thinking, speaking skill, and natural argumentation skill. However, CX is the harder event, and is actually more educational in terms of things learned. Why? Because of the in-depth argumentation (more warrants) and broad amount of arguments. It helps me tear apart plenty of argument my school's PF/LD kids make real easy because of that.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@TheNinjaFilipino true dat

[Sipsumsurp]

Fools, no debate is surpior. Therefore we can only see public forum as the best. Kthxbye, oh and TOC - NFL hahhahahhahahahhahahahaha penguins are ugly

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp that's just flat out retarded. Not only do you again advocate a claim without a warrant or brink, but your claim hardly makes any sense. You didn;t compare warrants well, because you have no understanding of a warrant. Plus you conceded A. B. C. and D. That's just novice level mistakes, stop before you PF debaters look any worse.

[Sipsumsurp]

We have cards too. Hahaha. Guess what, PF isnt focused on solvency learn yaa debates. Also pf is a mix of ld an policy so pleasee. Policy cant be understood by a goddamn regular citizen so your spreading is pointless. Like 1/3 states dont spread and policy and im sure as hell they are just or if not better. ALSO AT NATIONALS IN THE FINAL ROUND THEY DONT SPREAD. Your agreement is invalid...

[TheSupercheng]

@Sipsumsurp Policy isn't the only debate style that spreads, so your argument of spreading in policy is irrelevant. That 1/3 of states you talk about are small states that aren't powerhouses in national high school debate. Teams do spread in the final round. Get your facts right.

PF is more comparable to presidential debates; in other words, it's not very analytical. PF is less reliant on facts, warrants, etc.

Penguins is actually making valid points while you just whine on stupid things.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp A. Theres a reason why Policy Debators look to TOC over NFL competition is more intense every judge is experienced. B. I didn't PF was focused on solvency retard I said Policy structure was more advanced. C. Topics may be similar to LD and Policy but debating structure is still ginormously different. It comes down to you weaing the NFL as your largest warrant, and conceding to all my points on evidence, strucure and orginazation. Oh its "argument" by the way not agreement lol

[Sipsumsurp]

Okay bitchass policy kids we all got our damn speech and debate teams and dont try to pull some shit that public forum requires little inofrmation. Who gives a fuck about three boxes of evidence. PF carries around one with case books and 200-300 pages block on both sides. PF isnt bullshit spreading and PF does require skill for the second speaker. This debate sucked ASS coming from a second speaker in PF. Plus not all states spread in policy, specifically mine. They think your all dumb fucks th

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp all your arguments summed A. Spreading sucks B. Public Forum debators use books C PF requires skill D. Generic Namecalling. Right now I can't tell if you're a troll or a debator. First of you never proved why spreading was bad, remember it allows for hundreds of arguments to be made, and with the technical aspects of policy it is quite necassary. Also Policy much more clear evidence, look at cards CX vs articles and essays of PF. Big difference.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Sipsumsurp listen to yourself good gawd?! E. Who gives a crap about boxes of evidence? Not just boxes, its the evidence. Its much more organized into solvency, impact, and warrants. But of course you decide just respond to the boxes and not the entire argument. The dumbest thing you said is about spreading. You probubly can't find one warrant for spreading being bad other than your failure to understand it. Andy2g at least wasn't a troll. Chill out bro.

[ReesRippleInDaHouse]

I bet if the pro side had a child, it wouldnt be able to talk



[boydigsmusic]

The Second Speaker Pro Side. . . Wth are you doing second speaking? Your first speaker was a waay better extemp. speaker than you. . .

[LinuxSwag]

their first contention was WAY too broad they didn't PROVE that this is a direct causal link which is a point the pro should have brought up (correlation does not imply causation)

Overall EXTREMELY sloppy round and should have been a lot better they should have really kept track of the flow and stated that the argument should be dropped after refutation to point out to the judge that there is a case breaking flaw in the contraceptive.

I believe the pro won.

[LinuxSwag]

Pro:, They gave sufficient examples for the Copy Cat contention (con refutation blocked), lost the Sharing contention, but held the international relations contention (the con was WAY to sloppy refuting it) although the peace talks warrant were lost due to the evidence on the con.

Con : wikileaks isnt a threat was lost because they never retouched the counter terrorist analyst refutation. and they only have 1 other contention that didnt old too much weight. (CONT:::::::::::::::

[penguinsarebeast33]

Oh my god public forum is so newbie, it was created for parent judges. Policy kicks public forum's ass.

[Andyg2g]

@penguinsarebeast33 Umm ya no. How about you get back into your verbal diarrhea event and shut your ignorant mouth. Public forum is the closest to real debating as you can get. Policy is an event that should have been aborted, along with your pathetic self.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Andyg2g you prove my point your only arguments are claims. Forum closest to real life, and I'm ignorant. First of all you public forum debators don't even apply warrants, and hardly use evidence. We policy have much more organized style as shone in our flow sheets and argument format. Public Forum XD A couple news paper clipings and arguments desighned to appeal to the stupidist of people. Its more presentation than debate. The little structure you have is a mere part of Policy.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Andyg2g B. Who says real debating is necassarily good?

Poor argumentive techniques such as namecalling, you show that.

Public forum and unorganized real debates turn into he said she said. It is a competition of how large claims can be. Both don't give a crap about warrants or impacts, solvency, and espically framework good gawd! Using great grammar dosen't make up for lacking all these major components. Furthermore we spread. Still stands. Policy kicks the crap out of PF.

[Andyg2g]

@penguinsarebeast33 Alright, fair enough. Policy may consist of a more "technical" based debate, but you ignored my previous question: Give me one real life instance in which arguing in this kind of style (at this speed) will serve any other purpose than getting you laughed at. Public Forum, an event I personally find to be much more than you would like to limit it to allows for the presentation and argument of issues which have the most realistic impact on the average

[Andyg2g]

@penguinsarebeast33 citizen. Not only that, but for the love of God, what the hell is with that unnecessary spreading!? It's a meaningless tactic to try and fill your time with as much information as possible. Again, REAL DEBATE isn't like that. It's as simple as that. That is my biggest issue with it. Every other event has at least some kind of realistic touch to it: Congress, PF, Extemp, etc.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Andyg2g policy is like real life you just need to learn to analyze what's behind the scenes. After practice its easy. I did PF in middle school, and then policy took a while but it made sense. Your logic of spreading is non-unique "can be applied to so many other types." We have boxes of evidence and only 8 minutes to read what we can. So we spread. You don't really have a warrant for why CX isn't real. Presentation is a nice skill to have but fact is CX gets cares more about the d

[penguinsarebeast33]

@Andyg2g if you want your instance of course we won't spread in real life. But the structures of policy claim, warrant, and impact can be used in a regular argument and the warrant analysis "In policy extremely deep comparison of evidence and how they interact" helps for being an attorney. However like I said any average person who could understand spreading, still needs to learn the arguments. You probubly don't know to much about CX, but that's fine.

[HIPEOPLE652]

2nd Pro speaker "um"ed alot

[MANTRIS101]

white girls voice is soo annoying

[eleoele1]

no discussion of future talks in the future: 3:27 OMG

[applejack908]

ewwww i want hit her when she says nucular.

[TheMihong]

2nd pro speaker: oh hey policy.

[penguinsarebeast33]

@TheMihong policy is the bomb

[ToasterStuder]

Dang, shes good.

[themacfreakguru]

1st speaker had to many points, Instead she should of had less points and claims but gave them warrants and further explained them, If i was judging that round i would be confused right away. Its not easy to comprehend someone else's thoughts, Especially when you are presented with them all at the same time and so quickly. And you guys should really be using at the leisure. It sounds novice-like when you dont. And holy shit NU-CLE-AR not Nucular. smh. other wise great debate and good timing.

[jmalachipom]

The first affirmative speaker had too many points. She needed to cut one point and further develop her other two. She didn't give enough background information. Regardless, this was a good round.

[ThatAmazianGirl]

Winner: Negation.

[guitaristgap]

nucular -.- nuCLEAR

[DEVENATER10]

I feel so bad for the negation. Aff was talking SOOO fast.

[guitaristgap]

@DEVENATER10 lollol talking soo fast? LOL go watch policy debate XD

[penguinsarebeast33]

@guitaristgap I know right, I have done both and in my experience policy is more intense by far.

[HMachProductions]

And, well, that's my evaluation at 1:35 AM on a Sunday night. God, I love debate. Both teams were outstanding, and I'm not saying that as a cliche gesture, or some token of pity for one team and with ingenuity for the other. Both teams really did well. For me, it'd be a one point decision. I think 29-28. But right now, I have to get to sleep.

[HMachProductions]

The con had better speaking skill, in my opinion, and really brought it home with a few technicalities and solid standing contentions to wrap it all up, but if it hadn't been for that one observation, I would have gone pro. The points they provided were very well supported and very well argued. Not to say that con didn't, because they did as well, but the points pro made seemed very relevant, but they didn't abide to the resolution because they couldn't really hold the government lockdown point.

[HMachProductions]

Because the pro didn't really address the con's definition of national security, and focused mainly on outward sources, the con really took the internal standpoint - which is all they were really worried about, and because the pro didn't at all attack the observation, or even address it, it still stands, and therefore they must abide by it. The con won me with that. It's a one point decision, but con won me with that. It's not an appreciated tactic, but I suppose that it works. Overall, great!

[HMachProductions]

Leave it at that. No need to tell the judge how (s)he needs to vote. She sounds like she's campaigning. Pro very well held their own in the grand crossfire and definitely overshadowed con in the beginning, and I feel like con could have collaborated a bit more before getting up there because they were going for different responses to pro's questions. I think pro took the grand crossfire. Pretty good final focus by the pro, not entirely beautifully spoken, but really solid points.

[HMachProductions]

I wasn't sure about the 4th point by 1st con. Seemed like a new argument to me, being that I didn't hear it before in the round and it was a point of its own, rather than evidence. BUT, that informants being anonymous bit and thus the government does not disclose how many informants have/have not been lost was incredible. I don't like how she kept saying, "you must vote for the con, must not vote for the pro." It sounds like she was trying to exercise power over the judge. Make your argument.

[HMachProductions]

Good stuff there. She sort of reminds me of Sarah Palin, though. Not from what she has to say, but just how she sounds. Whoa, I don't know about that first point from the con. The other side did provide specific sites, and I think provided how one has access to a decent amount of knowledge. I can't be sure, it's late and I don't want to rewind. It's like the whole beginning of her summary, though, was observation based. That's a little shifty, because observations get subjective with judges.

[HMachProductions]

The roadmap by the 1st pro for the summary sort of made me cringe. She just blatantly stated she was gonna' be all over the place... But then, there's only 2 minutes, and you've got to cover a lot in that. At least for the roadmap she could have said she would be going chronologically... Something besides "just going down the flow." That was a pretty good summary, though. Grade A stuff there. Brought up some new evidence to help counter the con, and incorporated it into the generalization.

[HMachProductions]

While this doesn't negate the entire point the pro made there, it diminishes credibility for 2nd pro. Oh man, I can definitely relate to this guy for 2nd con. "They relate to us because they need to, not because they like us" was one major argument we used! The pro redeems his credibility with Clinton in the crossfire, though, with an evidence stalemate. Nice tactic. The peace for the region (Israel and Palestine) argument was great by the pro in the crossfire. I sort of thought pro took X-fire.

[HMachProductions]

Being that he stated that Clinton found Wikileaks to be a threat, but provided no actual quote. Makes it look as if he BS'd that. I can't prove that, though, being that con may have just taken a quote from Clinton out of context, perhaps leaving out that she sees future potential harm. And then he brings up Yemen and does the same thing! The pro focused like 30 seconds of his rebuttal on Yemen, and the implications with it, but then con comes and says that it's downright untrue.

[HMachProductions]

It's okay in context, but that sort of statement - the wording alone - makes him a sitting duck. The, "I have a right to know about collateral damage" portion was pretty solid, but easily refutable, but then, I can see the stress on pro's face, lol. I like how con brought in quotes from national security leaders to counter the quotes made by pro. Kudos for that. And then, the bomb drops. The Hilary Clinton quote for con. That just makes 2nd pro look like an a**.

[HMachProductions]

All of the sudden the evidence clashes and sort of wipes out the presidential order piece of evidence offered by the pro by stating that departments are changing their SOPs for the better so that "a Bradley Manning doesn't happen again." I loved that! The roadmap wasn't accurate though. 2nd con said he'd be on the pro side of the flow and then back to his own, but that didn't happen all too well. He sort of lost me when he said that "when we expose our vulnerabilities, that makes us safer."

[HMachProductions]

BUT what we see is that the pro didn't address the observations, so technically they stand. Because they didn't negate them, and didn't address what the observations entailed - focusing on the internal (because they put it with regard to the definition of national security, being that their's was internal), but instead focused on foreign relations after providing a brief new definition of national security. All of the sudden, con comes out of nowhere with BAM! - topicality. I like it.

[HMachProductions]

The second speaker for the pro brought it with that evidence! Countering the con's point of strengthening internal security with clash from the pro's point of internal discombobulation, backed up with some nice evidence. The counter for Wikileaks not posing threats was pretty direct and often used. I saw it quite a bit. The references to Clinton and Gates. Not a bad way to go, but not too strong. There have been numerous quotes by Gates stating otherwise. But then, would a citizen judge know?

[HMachProductions]

I wish the pro would have asked more in the first crossfire. It wasn't bad. Not all too great. The con started to bring it off topic when she asked which specific departments are having lockdowns. I think that just wasted time - could've been more time used for incrimination. Pro could have definitely used more clash, though there was a good amount. Just not enough overall for that specific crossfire. I can DEFINITELY tell the 2nd speaker for pro is ex-policy. 200 words per minute, lol.

[HMachProductions]

Ahh, Wikileaks. I remember this. Took first at districts with it - went on to take first at regionals with Iran v. NK. :) Also, no one likes observations in Public Forum. Don't use them... They can be easily shot down because you're essentially telling your opponents what they must argue to convince the judge - and that doesn't fly within such a rather informal debate style. Observations are policy, and a little bit of LD. Don't allow them to penetrate PF. Mmm, the con had a stronger case.

[kiesetangye]

After four years, it's a bit awkward to finally have the opportunity to watch myself debate...

[JVPC13]

This is the "AA" Public Forum Round.