PUBLIC FORUM RESEARCHERS—FOLLOW THESE EXPECTATIONS

 

 

Example Public Forum File xx note that this is the old format; see details below xx

 

 

INCLUDE IN THE FIRST PUBLIC FORUM FILE. 1

INCLUDE IN THE SECOND PUBLIC FORUM FILE. 1

TOPIC ESSAY. 2

DEFINITIONS. 2

REMEMBER—THE AFF IS PRO, THE NEG IS CON. 2

PRO CASE CONTENTIONS. 2

PRO REBUTTAL BRIEFS. 3

CON CASE. 3

CON REBUTTAL BRIEFS. 4

QUALITY EXPECTATIONS. 4

EXAMPLE OF TAGGED CARDS. 6

 

 

INCLUDE IN THE FIRST PUBLIC FORUM FILE

 

·       Due 8 days after topic is announced (you are obligated to check on topic announcement date)

·       Pay is $148 (28 cards plus essay)

 

·       2 pages of topic essay

·       6 to 8 tagged definitions (8)

·       2 pro contentions each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence (6)

·       2 pro rebuttals to the file 1 con contentions with 2 pieces of tagged evidence against each contention (4)

·       2 con contentions each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence (6)

·       2 con rebuttals to the file 1 pro contentions with 2 pieces of tagged evidence against each contention (4)

 

INCLUDE IN THE SECOND PUBLIC FORUM FILE

 

·       Due 18 days after topic is announced (you are obligated to check on topic announcement date)

·       Pay is $200 (Sept-Oct and Nov Dec, 50 cards)

·       Pay is $144 (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, June, 36 cards)

 

·       2 more pro contentions each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence (6)

·       2 pro rebuttals to the file 2 con contentions with 2 pieces of tagged evidence against each contention (4)

·       2 more con contentions each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence (6)

·       2 con rebuttals to the file 2 pro contentions with 2 pieces of tagged evidence against each contention (4)

·       Sept-Oct and Nov-Dec Additional Tagged Evidence: 15 pro and 15 con. (30)

·       Jan, Feb, March, April, June Additional Tagged Evidence: 8 pro and 8 con cards. (16)

 

See the Topic at: NSDA Topics | National Speech & Debate Association (speechanddebate.org)

 

TOPIC ESSAY

Essay discussing the topic (2 pages).

--2 paragraphs Discuss pro and con arguments for the case

--2 paragraphs Discuss rebuttals (responses) to the pro and con case arguments

--2 paragraphs Discuss weighing the arguments and key ways to win arguments.

 

DEFINITIONS

Provide two to three definitions of each and every key word/phrase in the resolution.

--NOTE: Tag and cite and format definitions just like you do for regular evidence.

 

REMEMBER—THE AFF IS PRO, THE NEG IS CON

—The Pro supports the resolution, NOT a plan

—The Pro has a case and the Neg has a case

—The Pro presents a rebuttal to the neg case; the con presents a rebuttal to the pro case

—When responding to the case—takeouts, alt causes, no links, no impact, turns specific to the case.

—NO counterplans, generic disads, kritiks, topicality.

—NO debate theory.

 

PRO CASE CONTENTIONS

(6 pieces of tagged and formatted evidence)

--Intro sentence or two plus “We stand for” the resolution as it is worded.

--Definitions of 1 or 2 key words in the topic; remember to tag the definitions included

--Arguments should be clear reasons in favor of the topic—offense for why the resolution is good

--2 Contentions, each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence for a total of 6 pieces of tagged evidence

--Each Contention must have a problem/impact card and solvency card (unless it isn’t a policy worded topic)

--Evidence should be about 1/3 of a page (3 cards fit on each page); NO evidence is longer than ½ page (2 cards fit on each page)

--contention/advantage titles should be very concise complete sentences, not just a word “Economy” NO “Carbon taxes hurt the Economy” YES

--Tags and all contentions must be complete sentences

--use tags that nearly mimic the exact wording in the quotation itself

--underline/highlight more of the evidence than you would in Policy/LD.

 

PRO REBUTTAL BRIEFS

(4 pieces of tagged and formatted evidence plus analytics/common sense responses)

--Rebuttal briefs against each of the 2 con contentions each with at least 2 pieces of evidence and at least 1 analytic/common sense for each response brief (total, at least 4 pieces of tagged evidence)

--Your Rebuttals should clearly and totally or nearly totally defeat the con contention

--Title of each brief is “Rebuttal to ___x argument”

--Same requirements for 1/3 page evidence, full sentence tags that mimic the exact wording in the quotation itself, underlining much more of the evidence than in Policy/LD

 

CON CASE

(6 pieces of tagged and formatted evidence)

--Intro sentence or two plus “We stand against” the resolution as it is worded.

--Definitions of 1 or 2 key words in the topic; remember to tag the definitions included

--Arguments should be clear reasons against the topic; should include “offense”—the resolution is bad

--2 Contentions, each with 3 pieces of tagged evidence for a total of 6 pieces of tagged evidence

--Each Contention must have a link (topic causes problem) card and impact card (unless it isn’t a policy worded topic)

--Evidence should be about 1/3 of a page (3 cards fit on each page); NO evidence is longer than ½ page (2 cards fit on each page)

--contention/advantage titles should be very concise complete sentences, not just a word “Economy” NO “Carbon taxes hurt the Economy” YES

--Tags and all contentions must be complete sentences

--use tags that nearly mimic the exact wording in the quotation itself

--underline/highlight more of the evidence than you would in Policy/LD.

 

CON REBUTTAL BRIEFS

(tagged and formatted evidence plus analytics/common sense responses)

--Rebuttal briefs against each of the 2 pro contentions each with at least 2 pieces of evidence and at least 1 analytic/common sense for each response brief (total, at least 4 pieces of tagged evidence)

--Your Rebuttals should clearly and totally or nearly totally defeat the pro contention

--Title of each brief is “Rebuttal to ___x argument”

--Same requirements for 1/3 page evidence, full sentence tags that mimic the exact wording in the quotation itself, underlining much more of the evidence than in Policy/LD

 

 

QUALITY EXPECTATIONS

 

Use the Verbatim Template.

 

1) USE QUALITY, RELEVANT EVIDENCE.

--When people look at the evidence, we want them to think “this is salient, quality stuff.”

--The evidence should give warrants for the argument in the tag

--Typically, Public Forum evidence should be about 1/3 a page

--Public forum evidence should never be longer than half a page

--If the issue is timely (e.g., uniqueness, current policy)—it should be VERY RECENT.

 

2) USE DIVERSITY OF QUALITY SOURCES.

--You may not use more than 10% of an article for quotations (try to keep it to 5%; if the article is less than 3000 words, you may use one 300 word quotation)

--Do not use the same source more than twice in a row in your file

--Minimize the use of less credible sites such as blogs, Reuters, “crazy ideologue websites,” etc.

--TRY TO GET QUALIFIED EXPERTS

--You may not turn in material from sources such as Lexis if you do not have legal access to use that source for the purpose of non-profit educational evidence materials outside of your company/school.

 

3) CITATION FORMAT. Make sure your citations look like this:

 

For citations of printed material:

George Henry Elias, Ph.D. in Engineering and Business at Berkeley, 1990

Breakout Into Space:  Mission For A Generation, p.129

 

For citations of web/electronic material:

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D., Apollo 14 Lunar module pilot, Sixth person to walk on the Moon and Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010

“Our Destiny – A Space Faring Civilization?,” Journal of Cosmology, Volume 12, pp. 3500-3505, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html (accessed 8/15/12)

 

NOTE: BOLD THE FIRST AND LAST NAME, QUALIFICATIONS, AND DATE

 

NOTE: YOU DO NOT NEED A PAGE NUMBER FOR WEB PAGE CITATIONS.

 

NOTE: YOU DO NEED TO INCLUDE TITLES OF JOURNAL/NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.

 

NOTE: YOU DO NEED DATE ACCESSED.

 

4) UNDERLINE THE EVIDENCE.

--Be generous in your underlining—much more than you would with college files (hs coaches aren’t keen on hyper-underlining and the kids can underline further if they wish).

--Focus what you underline on the key claims and warrants needed to support your tag.

--Do not underline just one or two words in a sentence.

--Do not skip over items that contradict your tag. If that happens—you need a different piece of evidence.

 

5) USE CONCISE TAGS THAT ARE VERY ACCURATE

--Tags should use words in the evidence

--Tags must be a complete sentence

--Avoid tags over 1 sentence/10 words in length except in unusual situations/kritik philosophical arguments where it is needed.

 

6) ALL PUBLIC FORUM FILES ARE SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY.

Email them to Jim Hanson.

 

7) USE CALIBRI 11 POINT FONT as your basic font.

Use 1 inch margins ALL THE WAY AROUND.

The Verbatim Template is set to do that.

 

8) FORMAT THE EVIDENCE.

 

–Block Titles F6

–Tags F7

–Citation (author, quals, date) F8

–Underline F9

 

9) MAKE SURE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SPAN OVER 2 PAGES

Add in page breaks—remember that some people still print these files and don’t want evidence printed on two sheets of paper.

 

EXAMPLE OF TAGGED CARDS

 

Bilateral trade is key to closing the US trade deficit

Thomas Duesterberg, senior fellow at Hudson Institute, February 17, 2021,

“The Economic Case For Prioritizing A U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement” https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasduesterberg/2021/02/17/the-economic-case-for-prioritizing-a-us-taiwan-free-trade-agreement/?sh=74e913665c6a (accessed: 05/09/22)

On the U.S. side, there is a growing case to be made in economic terms for an FTA with Taiwan. The United States exports more goods to Taiwan than to either France or Italy, countries with more than twice the population and twice the economic output of the spirited island nation. The United States does have a trade deficit of $30 billion, including $17 billion in advanced technology products with Taiwan which it would like to narrow. Taiwan is a good market for U.S. electronic components, aircraft, defense equipment and raw materials like oil and grains. U.S. manufacturers of the highly sophisticated equipment used in semiconductor fabrication plants account for more than half of sales in this subsector and Taiwanese firms are premier customers. Taiwan is almost totally dependent on imports for its growing energy needs, including inputs like raw metals and feedstocks for the chemicals industry. The United States is a major supplier for these products and has the capacity to increase exports to meet Taiwanese demand.

The economic benefits of trade with Taiwan are underestimated

Christine McDaniel and Weifeng Zhong, Senior Research Fellows at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, September 13, 2021,

“Noneconomic Aspects of a US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement: Insights with a New Tool” https://www.mercatus.org/publications/trade/noneconomic-aspects-us-taiwan-free-trade-agreement-insights-new-tool (accessed: 05/09/22)

The potential economic effects of a US-Taiwan FTA for the US economy are small but positive, at less than 1 percent of US GDP. These economic gains reflect the elimination of trade barriers, including Taiwan’s barriers in motor vehicles, rice, fish, and other foods and US barriers in dairy, textiles, apparel, leather, and certain crop commodities. The overall gains are small because trade barriers are already low, and most of the possible gains from trade with Taiwan have already accrued, following each country’s lowering of barriers in earlier years. By contrast, a US-China FTA is estimated to generate gains of 1.2 percent of US GDP, 500 times the gains of an agreement with Taiwan, and over three times the gains of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. These estimates can underestimate the gains from trade that result from removing nontariff barriers, which are hard to quantify, or they underestimate the benefits of trade liberalization in the presence of global value chains and intra-industry trade. In the case of US-Taiwan trade, the latter is particularly important. Trade liberalization in the presence of intra-industry trade can generate economic benefits such as economies of scale and increased product variety.