Introduction to Public Forum Debate

Below is the verbatim transcript of the live class, split into paragraphs for readability. It was auto-generated from the recording, so punctuation is minimal and it is easiest to follow alongside the video.

Thank you for joining during this class we will cover the basics of public forum including some large group drills that we can use to practice each skill for those of you in the room today we'll get you involved in those drills I encourage you all to take notes as we go along if you think that would be helpful for you uh this class will be about two hours but in order to get through all the material in a timely yet complete way it may run shorter

than that maybe a bit longer probably a little bit shorter please save all questions for the end take some notes I'm optimistic that we will have some time in the end for a q a or discussion and if I don't get to them just comment on the video so I can answer the questions in public again it is an intercourse so two things to note there first we'll be going into quote unquote Theory like critiques or like Advanced case writing um it's just two hours not

enough to cover things that in depth second thing I am going to gloss over some details so if you're like hey why didn't you mention this it's because it's two hours and you know this material could easily fit into like a semester-long course so that is the reason so there are two audiences I'm targeting here first I hope this to be a standalone PF intro for students and teachers so I will be uploading it to YouTube afterwards for anyone to see so again thanks for being

here thanks for participating you are helping future Debaters just by being here and following along second um for the new students live in the classroom this is everything you'll need to get started in public forum debate in terms of the structure of this course first the structure itself what a debate round looks like second flow how to take notes for debate three on the ballot and the judge this is what your actual Target is during your speeches fourth argumentation this is how to convince the judge

that you are right this includes contentions and cases uh fifth rebuttals so how to shoot down your opponent's arguments six collapse how to focus on a specific area in the round and argument rebuttal Etc and last weighing which is just comparing things advocating for your own arguments telling the judge that they're better than the opponent's arguments uh so before we begin I would like to note that everything here uh is covered very in depth in the PF intro course I put together available on our website

PF Essentials it is very cheap the course also includes several drills in each chapter really the best drills for debate are one-on-one or small group drills and the guide gives some some options for those okay let us begin so for some context public forum of course is the most popular format of debate in the United States it was originally meant to be accessible and straightforward so learning this style will give you the communication skills necessary to cross apply to many many areas of your life policy

debate on the other hand it's more technical more advanced version of debate but the basic communication skills are narrowly focused on the sport of debate itself so they don't really cross-apply as easily to other areas of life I will presume I'm going to get some angry comments from policy Debaters but I don't think so uh now to understand um everything else you will need to understand again this basic structure of a public forum debate round what does it look like so the resolution or the topic

that we discussed this is usually related to government policy in the U.S or in another country or internationally potentially a government an international body or another country and the same holds true for policy debate generally speaking there are two teams of two so four people total eight speeches total so each team does four speeches each person does two speeches there are two sides pro and con and public forum affirmative and negative and policy debate although um even in public forum affinek are also generally used and

I use the two interchangeably but generally I use affineg to talk about the affirmative and negative side uh the affirmative or Pro side agrees with the resolution and the con or negative side disagrees with the resolution the second speaker is usually regarded as the more difficult role the uh based on the speeches because they're all a little bit different and when someone is speaking when debater is speaking they face the judge again that's the person that you're trying to convince or online each person faces their

camera a single debate round including judging takes about an hour just for reference the actual speeches are I think like 43 minutes something like that but of course there's some time in between and judging Etc so these screenshots you're about to see come from PF videos which is the best YouTube resource to watch public forum rounds and there will be a link to that in the video description so again we see two teams of two one of them is pro one of them is Khan one

of them is f one of them is neg I don't know which is which um again teams of two you'll see that these are in classrooms generally in schools where debate tournaments are typically held uh the guy speaking he's got a stool you'll often see a stool chair pedestal stand something to see your computer or your notes um here again two teams of two in the back a bunch of participants a little bit odd but fine I'm sorry not participants but audience members people just looking

along with the debate um often very common you'll see judges in the room Origins people who want to watch especially in later rounds and then for an online round here you see four Debaters two and two plus the judge so again each team does four speeches and the two members of the team switch off so AF neg AF negafnig um although each of these speeches could be a two-hour lecture uh this is a rough version of what each speech does and you can follow along this

chart at tiny.cc slash speech chart I sent you that email and there will be a link in the description another note that either affirmative or negative can start in public forum um here's the four speeches first speech is constructive you just tell the judge why you're right State the reasons why your team is right this is where you read your case or your arguments the rebuttal States why the other team is wrong about what they just said in their constructive speech the summary is about collapsing

and weighing summarizing your team's main offense and defense final Focus speech you make the final case for why you win the debate and this is further collapsing further weighing your arguments picking maybe your best one or two arguments then weighing or comparing it against your opponent's best one or two arguments and then finally crossfires after the constructive speeches rebuttal speeches and summary speeches there are uh Crossfire sections so in total three different Crossfire sections usually three minutes each where Debaters ask each other challenging questions now

during this lecture we won't be talking about any of these speeches directly but instead about the component skills behind each of them again the PF Essentials guide the chorus goes in depth on each of the speeches and watching just a few full PF rounds on YouTube can help to familiarize yourself with what each of these things do a little bit more in depth again these rounds are about 50 minutes an hour each that's a ton of information to keep track of and therefore taking notes is

crucial to understand what's going on so let us next talk about flow again note taking so you can flow on a computer or paper but for this lecture we're going to be using a flow sheet that you can find at tiny.cc slash flow so I'm going to switch to that flow sheet to show you what is going on again this is a tiny CC slash flow that is this flow sheet um if you need to you can make a copy of this for your own Google

drive if you take notes directly in here I don't think you can so make a copy for yourself if you want to use it so here again is the first speech the farmer's first speech the negatives first speech as I said either after Ned can go first so there are two different tabs here depending on who goes first you can use optionally you can put the name of the speaker that might be helpful to remember especially if you're judging the number of the arguments this is

argument one argument two although again that is optional here if our topic was for example dogs versus cats dogs are better than cats AF might write an argument here dogs are Man's Best Friend okay that's one of the arguments other things you might note here are um facts information uh anything that was said warrants numbers so you know 98 of people love dogs and maybe the sources from New York Times 19 dogs are the best this other color is for the other team's speech so in

their next speech in the rebuttal speech will be uh contradicting this right they might say um it doesn't matter because they drool too much how can you be friends with someone who drools that is not possible and then the front line would be the response to this rebuttal so we might say drooling is good uh helps with paper towels sales improves the economy therefore dogs are good so after you've flown or taken notes on all these arguments all of these rebuttals all of these front lines

and any other thing that might happen during the round uh there are several things you'll be able to see at the end of the round you'll be able to see which arguments we're talking about the most which were spend the most time on which arguments other team ignored or dropped at what was said what was not said so all of those things are absolutely important to know if you want to have any chance of winning a debate um shorthand is also fine so here you'll see

I used New York Times um for the current September topic we're going to talk about militarization of the Arctic a lot I might write M A or something like that instead of militarization of the Arctic it's just a lot to write also adaptive flow to your needs again Some people prefer the computer Some people prefer pen and paper to probably go to practice with both but whatever helps you to win debates is really all that matters okay let us move on to our first exercise which

is this which is flu and these transitions will be a tad messy because it always opens up this first slide okay here is the um here's the topic all middle school students should join Debate Club and you can use that flow sheet I just showed you to take notes on arguments rebuttals Etc so um I will need uh the four of you to help me with this and this is very informal uh you don't need any kind of prep just tell me some ideas that you

think you can put it in the chat or even better say it out loud and we will work through this together just to give you some idea of what this will look like so first back to the flow sheet okay again all middle school students should join debate team should join The Debate Club so for the affirmative team we're saying yes all students should join The Debate Club what are some um reasons why people should do this we have one confidence you can join you can

build some confidence you can develop speech skills which is good for long term good for careers long term it's excellent good for English essays you get good grades so we have here we see we're developing an argument along with speech skills not just saying the argument speech skills but actually the the different benefits that can lead to the impacts long term um uh college resume and again all these things confidence we might flesh out the details of why will confidence help you in life for a

resume why will that help you in life those kind of skills uh how about some negative reasons reasons why it would be bad to join The Debate Club again this would be the other team the neg team saying why debate Club is a bad thing okay great so we have controversial topics it might be uncomfortable for some people it might I have one I was teaching an elementary Class where it was a war topic and the parents got kind of um and they I want to

want to say angry they were concerned because one of the kids was having nightmares which is fair it's Elementary and very heavy topics controversial topics they might get scared and deterred from public speaking sure it can be traumatizing and it takes a ton of time takes lots of time cool and um along yeah controversial topics it's also um uh they don't have enough understanding it might be kind of a scary thing could be scary in a lot of ways really enjoy okay great so this would

be the first speech from f the first speech from neck each of these will be four minutes long so we'll have a lot of research a lot of facts and information fleshed out arguments next we go to the rebuttal speeches where we say that these things are wrong so uh in in fact Debate Club can give you confidence what is a reason why it might not give you confidence here you might actually use one of these uh arguments that you used from the neg team again

this is the neg team going against this at these AF arguments um we're doing these speeches a little bit out of order but in the right order on the flow sheet uh so confidence you might actually get embarrassed again we could cross apply this argument about them being scared I could actually do the opposite take away from their uh confidence they could be embarrassed about mistakes yeah you do bad you actually lose confidence lose passion how about speech skills you're going to be better at speaking

why might that not be true exactly great so again cross applying going with the theme of the arguments we've already been talking about which is a great technique for debate kind of following a line throughout all of your arguments throughout all of your rebuttals making things simple for the judges we'll talk about in just a little bit uh if you're scared your speech skills might actually go down they will not be improved for the resume let us skip this for now um speech skills if laws

of confidence is rebuttal then what the confidence contention be non-unique we could say it's not unique we we certainly could and in fact for something like Debate Club we're going to use this example a couple times and we will talk about uniqueness later and it certainly maybe a lot of these arguments are non-unique so for the next side we might do the same thing neg says it there's controversial topics that's scary maybe AF can say actually no that's a good thing that's good to talk about

controversial topics push you out of your comfort zone um you might be uh scared and then deterred from public speaking uh you might say no no exactly the opposite will happen actually you need to be a little scared in order to learn these kind of skills and again for the last one let's pretend we don't talk about it although honestly you should be covering everything for the front line so affirmative team says you'll gain confidence neg team says no no you'll be scared and you'll be

embarrassed how might the app team respond to this and say no you won't be scared you won't be embarrassed he won't make mistakes excellent excellent so the more you practice the more you uh more you get used to it kind of um get conditioned into it and that was something that's scary at first might not be scary afterwards um and yeah maybe you shouldn't feel embarrassed like if the environment is set up the right way you won't have the the teacher and the classmates are supportive

maybe you won't actually get embarrassed so speech skills if you're embarrassed your speech skills might go down you might contrast this with what if you never practice speech skills certainly that won't help your speech anymore um almost everyone as we know if they practice something gets better at it so this might be the front line how we sort of defend this argument and then same thing here the neg team says there's controversial topics they're scary the afternoon says no there's a good thing you'll get out

of your comfort zone uh in order to oppose this rebuttal through the front line the negative team might have some kind of response like trauma equals scary again caring forth this um argument from here that your you might be deterred from future speaking public speaking or otherwise we might have a rebuttal here neg team says they're scared after him says you need to be maybe a little bit scared in order to learn to be pushed out of your comfort zone and we might say as we

know stage fright or public speaking is one of the number one fears ever it's not like if you go hang out with some tigers you'll just not be afraid of tigers they might eat you so maybe this huge overwhelming fear a lot of people have is legitimate okay so then we'll do a summary speech where we again might choose which of these arguments do we think are the best and then an affirmative speech I'm sorry a final Focus speech a final collapse where we really convinced

the judge that based on what was said in these first few speeches we win the debate now looking ahead a little bit at collapse this argument seems to be the one that was talked about the most although honestly both of these were talked about in both speeches so these might be good things to collapse to to choose as the best arguments on the other hand although the affirmative presented this argument the negative team never talked about it so if the affirmative team wants to bring it

up again in a later speech for example here hey we you never talked about the resume skill that's actually super important for jobs for money but also for increasing your confidence if you've got a great resume uh this could be an argument to use because this was never talked about again we'll we'll talk about in the collapse section why this gives you access to the argument okay so this essentially is flow and we will be using this for the rest of the class and also for

the rest of your debate career pretty simple okay you have all witnessed one small debate here and there's a reason that flow was put at this is the number one exercise it's easily the most neglected skill in debate especially for beginners but it's the most important of all skills in debate perhaps now before moving further let's talk about the person that you are actually trying to convince which is the judge again you may see these intro slides quite a few times throughout this lecture okay so

the judge is the person sitting in the room telling you who won who lost they write their decision on a piece of paper called the ballot type it on their ballot and that's all that matters in the debate that's who wins that you loses debate is subjective it's not like weight lifting where you know you lifted half a kilogram more than me you win it's not that simple that is fairly subjective the decision can in fact be based on many things which arguments they like their

mood whether they're taking notes or not any other any other biases and preferences like your clothing maybe you look more professional or less professional than someone your volume again debate is subjective usually judges will only count what they flow or what they remember they'll forget the rest of it so you need to make your arguments and speeches simple enough for the judge in front of you judges typically have paradigms paradigms are them telling you what they want what they like what kind of arguments they're into

which ones they are really opposed to and you will usually have access to this so before you go around read that judge Paradigm it's not always helpful in fact some students like to just skip them because they say okay the judges say I like this but they voted against it but in general I think it's better to have more information about this person in front of you because often you won't really know them circuits also uh will make a difference about which arguments work which ones

you should run which ones make more sense circuits are just the area you live in or you compete in so there might be differences between northern and southern arguments rural and urban circuits educated or not so educated circuits and probably the big one is local circuits versus the national circuit which are just bigger tournaments that more people from all over the country competed now there are typically different ways we categorize judges lay judges which are let's say normal people some parent who doesn't know much about

debate maybe it's their first time judging a tournament flow judges which are people who have been involved in debate maybe for some time other students who have done debate for a few years coaches or just people who have been in the community for some time they know a lot about debate and that's a different audience that you're going to be looking at right in the same way that I've have for example I've never judged a tumbling or gymnastics competition so if I was going to go

judge a gymnastics competition I would be a lay judge I don't really know what I'm looking at they all look amazing to me same thing with debate there's people with more or less experiences but in fact most judges fall somewhere in the middle I for example I've been pretty heavily involved in debate for seven or eight years but when I judge some policy rounds there's plenty of theory I don't know about and so students should be careful about running that in front of you different kinds

of judges so you need to make things simple for the judge there are a few ways to do this first speak at a pace a speed where the judge can understand you now that's different for different judges some judges can understand you speaking as fast as you possibly can most cannot so I can speak with emotion and passion to get through to the judge because the judge may be listening to 10 hours of debate each day the more emotion you put into it the more you

will get through to their potentially cold dead heart three collapse again focus on the most important arguments you cannot focus on everything you must choose the most important things to focus on only and make this very clear and simple for the judge last signpost tell the judge which argument you are talking about before you begin talking about that argument again with this flow sheet what we just looked at are just some very simple details on a very simple topic but most of these topics are very

complex and you will have many more arguments many more sources a lot more speech on that so you need to tell the judge exactly what to focus on and when okay next exercise judge adaptation Yadi we will talk about uh collapse a little bit later but collapse is how which arguments you choose to focus on so again when we just looked at this flow sheet if we talked about one argument a lot we probably need to focus on that more in the end because that was

80 of the time we talked started we spent in that debate that's an important argument to focus on and then that's one we want to collapse on maybe we read five arguments at the very beginning but only one took up most of the detention that's the one you focus on at the end because you can't focus on all five speeches throughout the whole debate or all five arguments throughout the whole debate um there's just too much going on you have to simplify things for the judge

and um for yourself okay so here's the question how might you adapt your style to the following judges how might things need to change in the way that you're speaking okay here's judge number one again you can speak up or write comments or on YouTube think this guy has been doing debate for 50 years he just drank two red bulls and he has seven different colors of pen in front of him yachty go ahead I love it that's very good yeah he does look very serious

um he's got seven colors of pen so probably there's no speed you can talk at and he's been doing debate for 50 years so he's probably bored if you talk uh anywhere the speed uh anywhere like a normal person's speed I don't know what this white powder is in the background but he probably knows this is from uh from uh what's it called mid-journey I'd assume he's not going to listen to Progressive debate okay great so it might be an older gentleman um Progressive debate might

be some kind of newer arguments again they're popular with some people popular in some places unpopular with others this is about reading the room reading the judge one of these skills that can really cross-applied to a lot of areas not every argument works with every person very good Maya thank you this is a very nice lady her son just started to bait and she really wants to help out this is the first round of the day how will you adapt to this lady Lauren go ahead

that's a great answer and a really good point that uh there may be some differences in how we focus on emotions versus how we focus on logic or evidence and it's true there's so many things going on in a debate round that if it's hard to keep track of which it really is especially if you're new uh then appealing to someone's emotions can be a more direct way to get their vote great answer this is a fellow student a sophomore it is their first year of

debate and they really love it how well you adapt to this judge great yeah this may be a Flay judge maybe somewhere in the middle between those two certainly knows some things about debate certainly has seen some rounds uh but you're not going to uh you're not going to go as heavy as someone who just is you know taking notes at a thousand words per minute great confidence when speaking that's probably not a bad idea with any judge but it is true that that um carries

more weight for some judges than other judges I mean it is true that if you just sound really confident there's a lot of people that will just believe you based on that alone all right final judge this is an out-of-state judge you've never met her her Paradigm is blank her eyes are blank you have no idea what she's um going to vote for she has no paradigm how will you potentially adjust throughout the round or how will you approach this judge great so speak slower increase

your emotions enthusiasm and confidence those are all great things uh speak directly at her and look at my and look at my computer less also really good again if the judge is focusing on you you should focus on the judge right if they're not especially if they're not taking notes uh you want to be making uh you want to be reciprocating their energy as much as possible if they're only interested in the words coming out of your mouth they're not making any eye contact they're just

writing things well then fine give them something to write but for someone who maybe especially don't have a whole lot of information about uh you can't assume too much although uh you may be able to read some things during the round if they're following you if they're not following you and that would help you to adapt throughout the round okay so that is judges again that is the main focus uh the judge and their ballots the main focus of your whole round let's next talk about

argumentation which is I said flow was the most important skill of debate maybe argumentation is the most important skill of debate maybe there's a lot of important skills in debate uh so this is how we put together an argument generally speaking uh to convince the judge that we are right a warrant you'll hear this a lot is sort of a top level reason why the judge should vote for your side some essentially are argument in plain English for why uh why someone why should the judge

should vote for your side proton uh this also may talk about your evidence how it supports your claim this can again be a top level summary and this Ward is also interspersed throughout your contentions as you explain each piece of evidence uh because we are talking the whole time using these chunks of research throughout we need to explain each one tied into our main points evidence is crucial these are expert opinions to support your claim unfortunately no matter how much you believe something or know something

you are just a student and we are just teachers and your judges are just folks you know it's not likely that you're going to be judged by an actual expert on Arctic militarization it's not likely that you as a high school student or an actual expert on Arctic militarization so we'll need to find those people find what they wrote In order to help you um make your case better a contention this is usually how arguments are broken down a contention is an argument that gives a

fully explained reason why your team is right your strategy in a given round usually focuses on one or two contentions although your team can read more than that so parts of a contention status quo this is what is the state of the world right now for the affirmative team sometimes the affirmative team might say the state of the world is bad and we need to change it for example by students joining a middle school debate club or by U.S increasing militarization of the Arctic we have

a problem we do this thing and the world gets better for the negative team we might say the status quo is fine again this is not a hard and fast rule but often the negative team says stats go is fine things are good if we change it we're only going to make it worse so this is um an important part of every debate round although it's not a necessary part of every contention next uniqueness this is how does only this policy cause a consequence or might

other things also cause it so as we mentioned in middle schoolers joining debate clubs maybe debate gives you confidence but maybe a bunch of other clubs give you confidence too and maybe those are better clubs maybe joining Basketball Club gives you physical um activity it's a lot more fun and it also gives you confidence so why join Debate Club that's not uniquely a way to gain more confidence I'll link ha this is how how does this policy change actually affect the world so we might just

say confidence is good it doesn't matter if Debate Club it doesn't increase your confidence so join Debate Club does blah blah or increasing militarization in the Arctic does blah blah that is your link how it ties into the resolution of the topic another impact again why it uh matters we often look for terminal impacts in terms of bodies or money but there are many less tangible things than live saved lives lost or dollars often we look for quantifiable impacts these are things we can put numbers

on so we can easily impress the judge and beat our opponents with our big numbers so when I think about quantifiable impacts I often think I'm sorry this is a bit morbid but this is debate I think often of so we we talk about for example covid the lockdowns and how for um you know this for some people this is really really bad for their mental health and this could have caused some suicides right and so that's really bad that is like a quote-unquote body right

that's a bad bad effect but there's also all of these other people who are just like severely depressed right and so that's another thing that it doesn't necessarily have to be terminal if you have a hundred million people that are severely depressed that's really really bad even if it's not a person who died per se okay so that is the structure of a of a contention the Lincoln impact being The crucial parts what does the resolution change or not change and where the impacts of that

a case again is you read in the constructive speech the first speech it's usually one or two contentions rarely but sometimes it's more I've heard um cases with as much as eight contentions okay so we're going to look at an example of this again the topic the U.S federal government should substantially increase its military presence in the Arctic this is our topic right now here is a warrant so note I'm going to label everything here during this exercise in actual contentions you don't necessarily have to

label this is really this is the effect it can be helpful um also all this evidence is made up that should go without saying but I should say it uh all the stuff is made up please use actual debate for or actual evidence for actual debates but for the remainder of this class feel free to make up any evidence you want we are not researching here so here's our warrant this is the top level argument Santa Claus is at risk militarization of the Arctic is necessary

to protect Santa Claus and keep the Christmas gifts coming pretty straightforward that's how we that's why we need to militarize the Arctic keep Santa safe that's our warrant let's look at some evidence so this is the status quo status quo right now Santa Claus is safe continues to deliver gifts to good little children ever Christmas and we have some evidence about how Santa Claus is doing very well from Los angelesats.com status quo however Santa is in danger there is something coming down the pipeline to get

Santa um we have the Soviets that are coming after and we have a direct quote from the Soviet minister of War saying they're coming for Santa so status quo it's fine it's Tesco also he's in danger uniqueness though only the United States can help so Marsha Marsh is a PhD 20-year military veteran prolific researcher and all that matters Christmas so this is a real expert this is someone who really knows about Christmas and militarization who can really speak authoritatively on the subject and she says we

need the U.S to save Santa it can't be anyone else there's a link militaryization of the Arctic by the U.S will let the U.S carry out its mission to save Christmas so this is links into our topic militarization of Arctic yes and then what does it do military militarization of our by the US what does it do in this case it saves same time again we have this Source um if your opponents or your judge wants to know what exactly is the source from or there's

two sources in Conflict you're going to want to read something that's impressive right so a senator from Alaska head of the Senate Arctic committee Armed Forces Committee that's pretty impressive like that's no matter if he's right or wrong that some credentials we can probably Trust impact economy we need Santa for the economy here you'll see I don't have a quote I do have a statistic though and I do have a source realstats.org so you don't necessarily have to give a quote as long as you have

some source to back up your information in fact number two you'll see we can have multiple links multiple impacts impact number two is Christmas cheer we don't only make a lot of money but if Santa stops his deliveries then Santa then Christmas cheer will go down we want to keep this 17 peak in holiday cheer to a billion people worldwide we have some numbers here again quantifiable impacts certain numbers and a reason why it matters why change of the real world okay this is exercise number

three so for this please use the chat GPT prompt that you can find at tiny.cc slash PF prompt um I think that's actually a capital f I'll put the link in the description capital P capital F I believe yes that's correct put it in chat GPT and see what it comes up with you will have a couple minutes to do this also for the prompt feel free to modify it if you'd like to focus on specific areas like the economy risk of War lost city of

Atlantis anything like that you'll have just a couple minutes to do that okay so again I want to focus on the link in the impact these are really The crucial parts of the argument would someone like to share a link with me a link about why militarization of the Arctic according to chat GPD or according to yourself is a good thing or a bad thing here's a link a substantial increase in the US military presence of the Arctic would allow for better monitoring of these emerging

sea routes and resource search areas it also demonstrate a commitment to protecting American interests in the face of growing International competition great so if we do this thing here will be the result that is a link very good here is an argument against a significant increase in U.S military presence could be perceived as a hostile act by other Arctic Nations leading to reciprocal military buildups and potential arms race Dynamics so again we do this something bad happens or for affirmative we do this something good happens

how about an impact some like to share the impact why that actually matters again according to you or ciao GPT here's an impact for affirmative so the lack of a strong U.S military presence the Arctic could lead to potential security vacuums allowing other nations to gain strategic Advantage advantages and influence in the region and we have a quote from CNAs I don't know if it's real or not Chachi patil hallucinates failure to adequately project power the Artic could lead to a reduction in U.S influence and

undermine Regional stability Yadi go ahead yeah great yeah yeah yeah for sure what could be an impact of that why does it matter if other countries go get those resources yeah sure or you know if there's um if there's a dollar on the table two people can't have that dollar so maybe if other countries take those resources the U.S can't take those resources and you might say why does that matter as long as we spread the wealth to the world I generally think that most people

generally think that any government should do what's good for its people so the United States federal government in this case should do what's good for the American economy not what's good for the global economy or the Dutch economy but instead for the US economy okay this is um obviously likely all of you use chat GPT regularly or other GPT engines and this is a great way to ideate come up with um examples for different topics but also to understand this structure okay in the next section

A few of you will be able to share your full argument if you'd like to but for now let's talk about responding to these kind of arguments these links these impacts how do we respond to them a rebuttal simply says that argument is not true so we say that other countries will gain influence in the Arctic a rebuttal would be no they won't or we'll say hey that matters because the U.S economy will decrease a rebuttal says no it won't in evidence briefs and elsewhere rebuttals

are often labeled as a 2 or a t which means answer two or blocks blocks are a related although slightly different concept there are many kinds of rebuttals but one important one is topicality the argument presented here doesn't match our topic so maybe I say look the US military is great because it employs you know 17 million people worldwide and you might say okay but that's not really what our topic is about our topic is about increasing military to the Arctic so I say hey I

think it's really good that we're you know increasing our build up in Australia you might say oh that's interesting but that's not related to the Arctic that's off topic so this is one potential rebuttal uh it won't be a common thing because people are typically careful about topicality but it is important to know if the argument is off topic it doesn't count and there are definitely some um some some room for debate on these things where maybe someone thinks okay this stuff this uh is definitely

on topic and the other team says no look based on this technicality this definition it's not on topic more commonly though these are the parts of the argument you might attack you might attack the uniqueness of the argument why this uniquely does this thing you might attack the link you might attack the impact or you might attack the evidence note we're not attacking our opponent that's not a personal thing so uh uh yeah we don't use personal insults to debate just uh insults to the argument

note that in a strict rebuttal we won't introduce another argument that outweighs the original argument I'll give examples of that later let's look examples now though on rebuttals from two arguments first the Santa argument and then an example on students joining The Debate Club so remember our for the same argument our uniqueness was that only the us can help we might attack this by saying no Christmas cheer could be delivered by any country any country is in the position to deliver this Christmas cheer to Santa

the same in Christmas so the US is not uniquely able to help by military militarizing the Arctic France could help China could help uh our link here was that Arctic militarization Saves Christmas the U.S has to militarize the Arctic in order to do it you might say no the US does not have to um military in order to do that I don't know where my link attack is but you might say the U.S can do it from uh from here or maybe just a civilian vessel

can deliver this it doesn't have anything to do with the military uh so a militarizing the Arctic is although we have to go there we don't have to do anything with our military that might be attacking the link or we might say that militarizing it won't save Christmas maybe it'll scare Santa off it will never see him from him again he doesn't like War impact so remember we said that the uh the economy will grow if we save Christmas an attack on the impact might say

that these Christmas sales could totally continue it doesn't really have to do with Santa um maybe other workers human workers could make all of these toys instead of saying those elves making them so this impact never actually comes true in either world uh the economy will keep on chugging one way or the other finally an Evidence attack again this is a I think an underutilized method of attack because I think there's a lot of really bad evidence I think the reason for it though is just

because it's very hard during a round as you're doing everything else to like dig into opponent's evidence and see what's potentially wrong with it but you know these two websites even fishy like probably those are not sites we should be using for academic debate rounds okay so another example so join Debate Club makes you richer that's the warrant um the link students Debate Club have higher grades test scores College admissions uniqueness other clubs do not have this effect Debate Club will not give you I'm sorry

a basketball Club will not give you higher grades or higher test scores impact again students who join Debate Club will have better prospects make more money throughout their lives and their careers due to better education so how can we attack this we've already done that a little bit in the flows section uh but for the link again uh students in Debate Club have higher grades that could just be um uh correlation of course it might not be causation maybe smart kids with good grades join Debate

Club because it's easier for them so maybe it has to be a club joining the big Club doesn't actually have that effect now here's a different kind of uh rebuttal oh you might call a weighing rebuttal rather than direct refutation again with a strict rebuttal we just say no that is not true but there are many other ways that you might um oppose an argument one of them is through Wing by just comparing so we might talk about opportunity costs yes Debate Club is good but

there's all of these other things that you're missing out on and these things are better right so for example Debate Club is fine Basketball Club is way better and so if you're giving up the chance to play basketball because a debate Club then it's not good for uniqueness again we say other clubs don't have this effect and we say yeah they do there's other clubs that have really good effects same as Debate Club but maybe even better great yeah mock mock trial is a great one

um uh model the UN a lot a lot of competition even for things where you speak a lot where you do research uh and the impact students who join Debate Club will have better job prospects we can say no that's not true better grades don't necessarily lead to more money tons of people make a lot of money maybe even before they graduate high school or college doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with each other we might also say no actually College costs a lot of

money so if you're trying to get into a good college okay you're going to have to pay a lot of money you're going to end up losing money not gaining money okay those are some examples of rebuttals exercise number four let's look at a couple more arguments see if we can develop um each of these attacks against them okay I need a volunteer to read their full contention from chat GPT if I've got one I have zero volunteers okay I'm going to cry but we can

still do this so yep please hey great let's do it so for everyone else please open up your flow sheet so she will be reading along or should be reading some advantages disadvantages we'll treat these like a case uh and again these will be the first two speeches and then we can come up with some rebuttals on these okay whenever you're ready go ahead okay there that is amazing ton to talk about for those uh do you you said you have some disadvantages as well okay

okay that is an incredible amount of things to work with for this exercise thank you very very much so remember we're keeping in mind those types of attacks we just saw we can attack the uniqueness and say okay yes fine that's a great thing but that's not because of the US militarizing or find this bad thing that would happen anyway we can attack the link no militarizing doesn't do that uh no militarizing doesn't do that you know bad thing or the impact maybe that impact doesn't

matter that impact wouldn't happen so let's talk about strategic returns first essentially uh for strategy there's a lot of shipping routes geopolitics access there could also be some resources but if she didn't mention mineral rights I can't read into that as a judge or an opponent there's no reason for me to do that so we concentrate just on what was said including how to spell the word sovereignty so for uh strategy what could be some potential approaches to attacking this again the uniqueness the link and

or the impact and again this is fairly informal we're not going to attack the evidence if none was red so we might talk about the absence of an impact here again like what exactly is the threat to China from China and Russia like uh we might say there's no impact or like if China and Russia sails ships throughout the Arctic that's probably fine you know maybe maybe they can use it um right so two two points here again we're just looking at rebuttals so again a

thousand different ways to attack this um so it doesn't the impact essentially the U.S should be could be saving a lot more money somehow we might talk about alternative methods that we don't have to have all those disadvantages from uh from militarization in order to get those cost savings uh if it is just China and Russia um saving money we might also ask like okay why does that matter for the US you know maybe that will be another impact attack maybe it's fine if they're making

some money you know it doesn't negatively or positively affect the US at all yeah great so some uh something more peaceful and not militarization um or or even using those um those Russian routes as far as some of these arguments it will be hard to attack the status quo or the link because they're just sort of facts so there are routes opening up across the Arctic we can't say no the Arctic is not melting no the ice will be there forever no there aren't Roots um

that are opening up those things are pretty irrefutable facts so you do have to be careful about that to say things that uh make sense essentially uh for China that they um claim the Arctic despite owning none of it again it's not a fully fleshed out argument although we can make a lot of assumptions about it but some similar attacks for China deterrence keeping other countries out what might be a uniqueness attack against this great yeah so there's um there's seven six eight eight total Arctic

countries so there's like um others participating um in the Arctic so it's not maybe it's not just those two and it's not just the us either and even the US is you know maybe should be a fairly minor player in the region but more importantly really on uniqueness it's like there are other ways of deterrence you know like for example Canada being a big player in NATO it's not really likely Russia is going to launch an invasion against Canadian Islands because that's launching an invasion against

NATO which we can try to make some kind of a case that way uh search and rescue operations um how might we so just as an example how might we um level eight topicality rebuttal against this so topicality that it doesn't fit the resolution exactly as written we might say like if if this is non-military then it's not topical or again if it's on a uniqueness argument that uh this can be done without the military and again these are just street rebuttals but some of this

could be weighing two for example against disadvantages like find the the military can be used to practice and also have resource Opera rescue operations but actually like the in environment and fire on meant is more important the environment outweighs so again this would be weighing rather than a strip rebuttal but once again many options for all of these what's important is that all of the key points on our flow and in our rebuttal should have some kind of a rebuttal on them uh because the more

that we the more convincing arguments the more evidence the more weighing that we do in this uh rebuttal speech the harder time the affirmative team is going to have using any of these again we talk about collapse choosing the best argument if we have really good rebuttals here there might not be a whole lot for them to collapse to they won't have many options we're really kind of strategically blocking them in by putting great rebuttals on everything that's why often for every argument you might not

just have one rebuttal you might have two or three rebuttals for each argument a lot of them will cross apply the things that you talked about in your first speech a lot of them will relate to each other just kind of weave this shield around their uh case so that it's hard for them to get through they're going to have to respond to all of these things that you said it just makes it very complicated for them again if you were to just not talk about

one of these things okay now it's quite easy for them now they have a very direct route through to the judge's ballot because you didn't put any defense in the way here okay uh let's go through the same thing with uh neg we are making great time we will certainly be um ending early today which is great I'm happy to be concise uh question what is the weighing mechanism for AF so we will talk we'll have a right after this we'll talk about weighing or at

the end we'll talk about wing um weighing mechanism just the different things that you can compare on so if I say um you know that my car is better than your car you might say okay what does better mean does that mean it's cheaper does it mean it's more expensive um doesn't mean it goes faster doesn't mean it carries more things there are different values in what you might have and in the same way we might have different values here like is search and rescue operations

more important the environment or less important than the environment we might have to think about what really matters what's the value here those would be the the weighing mechanisms we might use okay going on for just a little bit more of um rebuttal practice how about environmental impact having more military presence in the Arctic will be bad for the environment how can we respond okay great so this would be further expounding on the neg argument which is very good now we have more to attack yep

yep that could be yep that could be a front line or or just um more part of your argument but you will see that this is why oftentimes a case is only one contention because if you can add a bunch of details to it then it makes it a lot more difficult to respond to we have to respond to Polar Bears and the military ramp up and the fragile ecosystem and oil spills that makes our rebuttal difficult um great the military will not be shooting polar

bears so those are not our enemy good what kind of a uh uh rebuttal would this be yes telescope ties in this would also be uniqueness that like okay we militarized the Arctic the article melt we don't militarize the Arctic the Arctic will also melt okay this is it does not have to do with the military other countries are already starting to ramp up great so if there are unique military things it's not the unique to the US so it might not be unique to militarization

it might not be unique to the u United States militarization great um great compared to what like what else could damage it much more so it's not just Arctic activity that influences Arctic it's everything it's the whole Global emissions um and also just compared to commercial interest which will be the major players in the Arctic so that's mining rigs or oil oil drilling apparatuses things like that those will be the major things here 's something I didn't mention in the uh in the slides but also

another important rebuttal I thought I would skip this because of time but we have plenty of time a turn is so we can say that okay actually uh uh exactly the opposite of what you're proposing will happen so you say the military will be bad for the Arctic we can say no look the military protects the Arctic the Arctic will be better with the military there the the equals The Fragile ecosystem will be better protected you know we won't have things like overfishing because we'll have

like Patrol vessels to to enforce the laws um and we maybe it will a military presence will keep the peace obviously having a war in the Arctic would be pretty bad for the environment so a turn says no exactly the opposite of what you're saying will happen environmental impact this is actually our argument now the military is good for the environment no poaching helps the polar bears Okay so these are some fantastic examples of how to go about rebuttals again these are things that you'll prepare

um before any topic you should have a bunch of these ready we know what their major arguments on the next side are what are the major arguments on the app side again for debate track I have a rebuttal sheet that gives you kind of a start for a lot of these rebuttals I don't know how many of them would actually win debate rounds but it gives you something to think about anyway for uh preparing to start these rebuttals just some some basic thoughts on how to

go about attacking all of these during rebuttals ok let's go back to our slideshow and look at all of those introductory slides once again they are so beautiful wonderful judges argumentation rebuttals okay so again we have a couple times look at the flow sheet look at looked at arguments looked at rebuttals even a little bit looked at front lines how to respond to other bottles however at the end of the debate as you can see each team will have gone through several Arguments for why they're

right many sub points a lot of different evidence a lot of debate and crossfires and by the end of the debate you're going to have by the final speeches you're going to have uh you know 30 35 minutes of debate already on the subject a lot talked about so the next thing we need to think about is collapse how to focus on the best arguments I don't have an exercise for this as it typically takes a full debate round in order to come up with like

what exactly are the strategies to think about but we will talk about collapse just for a moment here so this is important for mainly the final two speeches but especially especially the last speech or the second summary speech so the last three speeches I suppose uh collapse is picking the most important arguments and the most important rebuttals to focus on there can be many arguments rebuttals counter rebuttals again your judge may be new to debate they might be uninterested in what's going on they could be

tired hungry daydreaming so it's your job to bring the debate Focus to only the most important arguments to help you win the most important arguments that paint your team in the best light and the opposite team in the worst light so again this is mostly done final Focus although some happens in the summary there's a few things to consider with your collapse including how comfortable you are the argument if you really like an argument and you're like yeah I've just won seven debates on seven to

eight rounds on with this argument maybe collapse to that you know also how it interacts with your opponent's argument so if your argument goes against your opponent's arguments very well you can use it for both offense defense that might be something to consider and how much the judge seems to like it so if you know for a fact that the judge is really into this argument or their eyes are really lighting up while you're talking about something that could be something to go to as well

however probably the most important thing to think about for most rounds is simply access access means how open or unattacked an argument is if your opponent attacked an argument fully and you have no good rebuttals and they have better evidence than you then you don't really have access to that argument you can repeat the argument again but everyone in the room knows you lost that argument so you're kind of wasting your breath by bringing that argument up again in these final speeches where your time is

very short on the other hand if your opponents failed to fully attack the argument or you had really good responses to their rebuttals you do have access in general choose arguments that you have access to this is something that you can see as we just did on the flow on the flow what are the arguments what are the rebuttals which ones um are are there do your opponents not have a great case on those are your best arguments that you have the best access to okay

finally let us talk about weighing so weighing is comparing to arguments or to impacts potentially some other things we can even weigh weighing mechanisms uh but it specifically Compares impacts or links or evidence quality the appropriateness of an argument potentially topicality or anything else a judge may want to focus on um a lot of other things but here's the big ones magnitude time frame probability maybe severity and I'll mention just a couple other things so um for magnitude magnitude is just how big of an issue

something is uh often based on numbers so how many people are affected if a thousand people are affected that's worse than if a hundred people are affected how many lives are saved how many lives are lost uh how much money is made how much money is lost so if the other team you know we're saying okay we risk a hundred dollars by being in the Arctic and I'm saying no we can make it 10 billion okay those I just win by such a large magnitude that

uh economic impact so that's magnitude time frame could be two different things how quick something happens so generally we think if something is going to happen immediately that's worse than something that takes a long time or if something lasts a long time that's worse than if something only is temporary something is temporary and then it's reversible then maybe that has a short time frame so um again something like environmental degradation that has a very long time frame maybe thousands of years of humans all disappeared before

the Arctic return to quote unquote normal um or maybe it's not reversible at all maybe the time frame is infinity right uh something else like uh Regional tensions in the Arctic that might be a short time frame so maybe the environmental argument would win on time frame versus a regional tension argument that's a much shorter time frame probability How likely something actually is to happen um even if the magnitude is quite big you know obviously uh these existential risks like nuclear war or some of the

big powerful magnitude impacts in debate but if the probability is quite low then maybe that argument is worth ignoring so what is the probability that a war which would be really bad will actually break out in the Arctic probably pretty low so maybe that's not the most convincing argument even though the magnitude is very big this is something that you'll say if you are on the uh aft side anyway or next side depending on how you're running the war argument uh severity this is just the

degree to which it matters so it's not just simple numbers uh like I talked about before simple numbers like um 100 people versus a thousand people okay like what's happening to those people right so if we compare 100 people losing their shoe to 100 people losing their leg we have to go with the one that's more severe obviously uh these are just some examples the ones that come up a lot um but there are many again many other ways that you can weigh things again think

of all of the ways you can compare two cars to maybe same amount of ways you can compare two arguments along with their rebuttals uh uh impacts links everything else so comparing that evidence is good often if they come into conflict with each other right I have one fact the other team has another fact for this argument I'm sorry for this topic on the Arctic because Russia is such a big player the Ukraine war will really matter about um the the time the date that the

evidence was published so if some evidence says that hey the U.S and Russia can work together really well this evidence is from 2017 you might weigh on this evidence and say okay let's first ignore this evidence and then I have evidence from last year that says that you can't work together so my evidence wins it's newer it's better it's more updated or maybe just the sources are better right maybe um you know Encyclopedia Britannica is better sourced than santastats.com for example uh fairness so there are

really other technical ways to uh weigh things in debate maybe uh the educational value of the debate might be something people weigh on they might say hey I'm new at debate this guy's speaking way too fast it's just not fair you'll really have to flesh out the argument more but fairness is really something you can weigh on um or or other things okay so before this let me look at this question um this was a collapse question when you're focusing on the best arguments so that

means simply repeating them and how they refute your opponent's previously previous rebuttal um yes essentially that is what it means so um when it comes to the last speeches again this is part of making things simple for the judge you will be repeating your main arguments right you'll be repeating the warrant repeating the the impact not reading everything but just reminding the judge um what you said in your previous speeches it's called extending and it's a very important skill because again for just normal people your

attention span isn't that great we can't remember everything that happened so if you have some important things to say keep saying them you know often we'll have in a case some something like a motto or a mantra we keep coming back to um you know like you know preserve the sanctity of the Arctic will you take this phrase and we'll say it over several speeches to really get into the judge's head like yeah we should we should protect the security of the art we really should

do that and so that yeah that's extending your argument um yeah repeating them potentially elaborating on them so this is called um well maybe another version of extending but you can't you can't potentially elaborate on something you can implicate it which means uh explaining why it matters even more so we talk about the environmental impacts maybe in our latter speeches we'll explain more why those environmental impacts matter so much you know how they'll hurt everyone in the world how they'll hurt the US economy but a

lot of it is repeating in terms of collapse yeah okay here is our uh final exercise for the day uh please go back into chatgpt and to this prompt tiny dot CC slash PF with a big p and a big F prompt use prompt number two to come up with some more on conventional or likely silly Arguments for our Arctic topic or if you prefer you can take out those adjectives develop more serious ones um honestly either one will work I kind of like the unconventional

ones does a good job with that uh then pick your favorite argument from both sides I will give you about a minute and then uh we will work on weighing them could you send the link in the chat I can't find the GPT absolutely one moment okay again those unconventional ones are going to be more fun to play with so again this is on weighing does someone have a good argument for Pro or F okay F argument is on polar bear diplomacy so a larger military

presence could be framed a symbolic gesture to protect Arctic Wildlife particularly polar bears they can becoming the global leader in polar bear conservation the US can engage in polar bear diplomacy uh improving its International image and promoting conservation efforts great okay let's look at one for negative these are more or less picked randomly so um I don't know if we'd actually land on these two in the end of the debate but resource allocation expanding military presence requires significant resources including funding personnel and infrastructure versus resource

could be better allocated to address pressing domestic needs such as Healthcare education and infrastructure development okay so let's start with polar bear diplomacy and we are we are on the AFT team we are weighing polar bear diplomacy saying that it's better than resource allocation what weighing mechanisms can we use to say that polar bear diplomacy let's pretend that the end of this debate round neither one has really good defense on it the judge really believes both and our only goal here is really to tell the

judge what our argument is a better argument you got to vote on that like fine they're both true you believe both of them but polar bear diplomacy is just more important what can we tell the judge here so one of these weighing mechanisms I briefly uh talked about is reversibility reversibility where if you can't take something back then it's usually seen as more severe usually worse um although there could be irreversible good changes so polar bears are in the brink of uh brink of Extinction uh

if they go extinct we can't get them back so we win on reversibility because um resources can always be a crude uh to fund um National programs like healthcare education infrastructure development Etc polar bears can never be brought back right so we went on reversibility did the non-renewable resources we can't bring them back once we run out we run out because we can't artificially create um fossil fuels so I see cool so let's let's um we can come with a couple for both but here on

the net team we're going to say no no no our resource allocation argument is better than the polar bear diplomacy argument and you're also using the same weighting mechanism reversibility which is very cool uh so you're saying yeah fine that's a fine way to think about the arguments but you're totally wrong about it actually uh non-renewable resources in the Arctic can um like maybe there's only one gold rush for the non-review new resource in the Arctic we only get one chance if other countries get to

them they're gone forever cool so we use the same because I'm here for both what might be another weighing mechanism for AF that polar bear diplomacy is better than resource allocation magnitude babe maybe okay explain um so the severity of the problem is much more and the magnitude is much more because um polar bears like you said they can't be brought back and they're on the extinction list we could go into renewable sources of energy instead of continuing non-renewable sources of energy so the magnitude for

f is greater cool so you just said some great things um but I don't know if they necessarily relate to magnitude when you say it that um we can use non-renewable resources that might really just be a uh something like a rebuttal it's kind of like an alternative like they say that we need all these resources from the Arctic you say no we don't need all these resources from the Arctic there's other methods like Renewables that give us the same thing like energy but they don't

have all these downsides to them when I think of magnitude although you know these are just rough terms like you could totally say that in a round and win uh when I think of magnitude are usually just think of numbers like what are the big numbers here so for um f what is the big number here number of polar bears Maybe I'm looking at this improving its International image so that means like um all countries will see the us as better you know this might really

impact almost everyone in the world you know I mean again it's a small thing like oh the US is nice okay it's kind of a small thing but the number is pretty big you know all the people in the world might have a better view of the US um versus resource allocation that this is like only helping maybe a few people in the US and again the impacts here improving its International image it might be more salt power for example soft to Gemini create great great

that's an excellent impact okay how about for neg are there other things we could use oh oh sorry also for reversibility we also can have time frame just that you know again going along with reversibility this is a change that will last forever uh anything for neg talk about how resource allocation would be better any other weighing mechanisms so again when we're talking about just like using any potential weighing mechanism Chris can you explain please scope Weighing on scope okay neg would win on scope since

the extinction of polar bears doesn't affect the rest of the world like the shortage of Natural Resources great so the polar bear Extinction is really bad for polar bears but not for anyone else so how about like all the humans in the world maybe that's more important also the U.S federal government is very kind to protect animals but really like U.S citizens are more important I think most judges would agree that like humans are more important than animals not all judges but I think a lot

of judges um so yeah good just polar bears are pretty limited to polar bears um and yeah great probability that like probability what is the uh chance that um probability what is the chance that the military will actually Target polar bears very little what's the chance that they'll actually affect it very little whereas a resource allocation like this is like 100 probability is something we can affect 100 probability uh militarization especially as the evidence as the resolution says um significant increase in militarization will take away

resources whereas polar bear is like I don't know what's the chance two percent who knows not much okay that's really really good this is this is fantastic work uh let's do one more very briefly before we wrap up this section and this lecture does anyone have one more F argument one more neg argument again ideally the weirder the better polar bears was pretty good yeah go ahead I had a question for the previous one so instead um about polar bears polar bear Extinction is really bad

for polar bears well it could destroy the whole ecosystem so someone could easily refute that rebuttal yeah that's true that is true and for the AFT team their job will be to review these as much as possible um so we talked about this before that either team can go first you know aft can go first or neg can go first and that's part of like coin flip at the beginning many people choose to go second in fact that's probably the most common answer if you want

to be F or neg or just go first or second most people say most the the usually the best strategy is go always go second there's a couple reasons for that but one of the reasons is that you get the last word so this is going to be this weighing is going to be done in a lot of it will be done in the last speeches and if you can if you're the um if you're the last speaker you can listen to what your opponent says

and say no that's not true and that's not true and that's not true whereas if they speak first they don't get that chance you're the last one to speak and therefore uh you can refute the there's weighing and so you're totally right everything we've talked about all of these examples will be refutable will be debatable and will be necessary for you to debate if you want to win okay good question let's um just go to this final example thank you for these examples I hope they're

weird we're gonna use them okay strategic messaging oh this is just good it's not weird the second one is also not weird but actually we should definitely talk about this okay so for f we should not militarize or we should militarize Arctic because of messaging demonstrating substantial military presence the Arctic sends a message to other nations of the US is committed to a pulling his interest and protecting its allies this can contribute to stability and return to the region okay fantastic so we need more military

presence so that everyone knows we're in charge we're the boss up there Nick we should not increase militarization because many indigenous communities called Arthur comb they have unique cultural environmental connections with the region increase military persons could disrupt their way of life and infringe upon their rights okay so for ask we are saying that this strategic messaging is more important than indigenous communities there may be some parallels here with the last example which is very natural or neg we're saying that indigenous communities are more important

than uh the Strategic messaging okay so for weighing why might strategic messaging showing that we're fair and present in the region why is it more important than indigenous communities I think this might be more obvious if we add some impacts to strategic messaging uh can contribute to stability and deterrence in the region thereby preventing War it can also um in preventing war and increasing National Security and the um safety of everyone in North America okay great so we're talking now um maybe just about numbers so

this could be scope this could be magnitude we could be talking about um everybody that is our Ally at everyone in NATO everybody that's on that Arctic Council that we're going to protect people that are our own yep fantastic so if we look at all the people in only the US that's like 330 million people all the people in North America I have no idea but I guess half a billion or 600 million or something and even NATO I mean obviously that's like I don't know

a couple billion I guess um that's a lot of people compared to how many um Arctic natives are there not that many you know a few hundred thousand so just like again this might be a utilitarian argument that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and in this case um indigenous communities are the few so I'm sorry go ahead plus it sends a message to other countries that maybe uh like Russia or China that do not protect their indigenous peoples that we

do protect the people and they don't and it may turn those people against their own countries uh in a way I don't know if that's a benefit benefit to us but in the long run it may be yeah benefit to protecting indigenous communities right if we're playing the long game it may be if the US is playing the long game it may be beneficial to us in the long run great so um that might be a neg potential weighing mechanism um I'm not sure what you'd

label that exactly but it does kind of it's sort of like the indigenous communities is like a method of strategic messaging protecting indigenous is a method of strategic messaging or kind of a strategic move in that way it's like China doing their belt and Road uh you know strategic moves they're they're doing the long game thing yeah so this I mean this could be a time frame thing that again like the polar bears you know indigenous cultures and ways of life can't be taken back maybe

they've lasted for thousands of years you know it's this is an irreverse civil change and maybe there's other ways to deal with strategic messaging maybe we're already doing it and maybe just the impacts will not last as long it could be a time frame uh defense for indigenous communities um we could wait here on morals and this will be getting into a little bit like um like uh Frameworks so you might these kind of wing mechanisms you might say right up at the front of of

your debate round as part of a strategy uh that we need to be looking at the debate round through this lens and that's what might be called a framework and so uh one of those lenses could be any of these weighing mechanisms but often there'll be something like a certain moral value like justice or you know Freedom you know is the most important thing um and so for neg we might just say them you know morality of of protection or um some other sort of philosophical

framework that like it doesn't really matter um about like our sort of national security or whatever like we can't just be robbing people of their land like that's it doesn't really matter what the impacts are one way or the other like it's not something we should do um so you know maybe there are some just objective morals that like you know if you if you need to like kill a baby to save people like don't do it like what are you talking about saving people don't

kill babies like that's absurd it's wrong it's always wrong it doesn't matter where you're saving one or the other like this is just something we we need to do so if you were running in indigenous communities argument you might want to anticipate these kind of attacks uh by coming with a framework beforehand that like you know our um are sort of moral Integrity as a nation is like harmed by um not predicting indigenous communities and that always will outweigh uh sort of geopolitical moves you know

sort of in the same way that that the United States um that our our history with slavery or with a lot of the unjust Wars we've got into Iraq Vietnam Etc um they just make the the US look really bad and it's like we don't really have a moral weight a moral ground to stand on for other countries or even for ourselves in order to our moral character Etc and so that should just always doing good things should always outweigh like whatever your Ambitions are okay

that was fantastic uh uh yeah we will end a little bit early which I think is a great thing uh where are my slides where are they at my slides okay this has been it a brief um introduction to public forum I hope this helped those of you who came thank you all for coming and participating and to those of you watching on YouTube uh again for more in-depth coverage of these lecturers please see the PF Essentials course if you're in the lecture here today I'm

happy to give that to you for free just send me a message um if you're new to debating I think the next step for anyone who watched this lecture they're like brand new they're like how do I debate you're like okay what do I do next like that's kind of made sense but a lot of those things didn't really make sense I really understand those things I think a really really good Next Step would be to watch some public forum debate rounds like that'll be the

best way to just dive in and understand a lot of these Concepts there's many on YouTube um I would just watch the round take notes flow along with it with that flow sheet try your best to understand what's going on try to identify those things like impacts those things like weighing things like links different quality of evidence um and if you can watch I think like three rounds over the first week that you're practicing debate again they're about an hour each following along with them I

think you'll have like a very very decent grounding for how to do public forum debate um now we have a few minutes left does anyone have any thoughts questions or comments uh anything I talked about anything I might have missed okay fantastic again uh thank you all for coming have a wonderful rest of your day and uh have a great year and debate