Public Forum Evidence

[datdude]

OK, so I am planning to do PuFo next year; and I am wondering where/who is the best place to buy topic packets to help supplement your research? Who has the best "stuff"?

Thanks

[a.brown94]

I would say that planet debate has a pretty good packet but if you really want to do well dont stick with the word for word packet arguments. Read alot of studies and articles and analyze them into your own unique argument. The generic one's seem to get figured out and defeated pretty easily. Good Luck

[betsycon]

We used to get Finalist Files. There is a lot of information in the packets and the main thing my partner and I used it for was to get an idea of what other cases people would run. It is also helpful, not to site it for your case, but to get a bit of a clue on to where you should start researching.
I'd recommend Finalist Files, even though we didn't get them this year.
Good luck! :)

[turtleman63]

My team uses pf debate. It has worked out extremely well for us in the past. However, I would look around and try a couple different briefs. Good luck, pofo's the way to go!

[MichaelJacobs]

OK, so I am planning to do PuFo next year; and I am wondering where/who is the best place to buy topic packets to help supplement your research? Who has the best "stuff"?

Thanks
The best place to obtain research supplements is your head. The best arguments are the ones that you can come up with after reading a lot of different articles and evidence that will support either side of a topic. Just the same as with some articles/evidence, you may not be able to understand them, which makes it very hard to interpret and put into your own words, so you could be wasting your money. However, if you take the proper steps to formulating cases with arguments conceived within your own head, you will be much better spoken, informed, and well off.

[D Kelsey]

But packets win rounds too.

:)

[JjulianSr]

But packets win rounds too.

:)

With respect, packets do not win rounds. Debaters win rounds. All the packets in the world won't compensate for a lack of fundamental argumentation skills.

[debatemaster]

dont waste your money

[DarkDwarf]

Definitely get packets. They help you to know exactly what the "bad" teams are running. You should never run a packet argument.

Bad is in quotes because I've seen teams do very well off of packet evidence. But they're lazy, and if they only have packet evidence you should have a massive advantage.

[meganpillow]

I use packets just for inspiration to make unique cases, and also come up with good blocks to counter all the agruments, because I know SOME debaters just read off packets and it ticks me off. So buy one or two, but don't build your case around it.

[Grant Johnson]

How much do these "packets" usually cost?

[the_hunter_95]

With respect, packets do not win rounds. Debaters win rounds. All the packets in the world won't compensate for a lack of fundamental argumentation skills.

I completely agree with this statement. All packets do is help debaters find some information to use for cases. I used a packet in my first debate and went 2/2. There is no guarantee in winning with a packet. You could completely debate without it.

[BShulman]

The best thing you can do is obtain several different sets of briefs in order to get a fairly full overview of the topic at hand. My favorite briefs are the ones from Paradigm. They have great cards, as well as blocks, arguments, and in depth analysis.

Whatever you do, don't rest on briefs. Use them as a stepping stone, but not your foundation.

[MissInterpretation14]

With respect, packets do not win rounds. Debaters win rounds. All the packets in the world won't compensate for a lack of fundamental argumentation skills.

Oh, Public Forum evidence. How unbelievably frustrating it can be.

As far as "packets" (they're actually called "briefs"), Planet Debate usually puts out some useful info. However, Planet Debate is one of the more popular brief providers, and therefore your opponents are very likely to be familiar with the evidence. So add in Crossfire briefs, and Cross Examination briefs are good, too.

Before you go buying them, however, the best place to look for the actual arguments is right on the NFL website. They give you a list of possible contention ideas.

It's true that debaters win rounds. That's EXACTLY why the packets are so useful. If you're good at debate and argumentation, you want to focus on those skills when practicing rather than waste your time searching for statistics and facts that can be provided to you in briefs. They definitely won't MAKE you win, but they can assist you. Also, since other competitors will have the briefs, it's good to be familiar with your information as well as theirs. And since they typically have the same information, it's proof that you're winning by your own skills.

Just always be careful to be VERY CLEAR on citing your evidence. Don't give your competitors any reason to doubt your integrity, because believe me, they will use it to their advantage. Sometimes people that can't win on their own will use any technicality to beat you, and depending on the rules of your district, it could very well give them a win. So cite clearly, provide promptly, and kill 'em. :)

Good luck!!

[JjulianSr]

...
It's true that debaters win rounds. That's EXACTLY why the packets are so useful. If you're good at debate and argumentation, you want to focus on those skills when practicing rather than waste your time searching for statistics and facts that can be provided to you in briefs. They definitely won't MAKE you win, but they can assist you. Also, since other competitors will have the briefs, it's good to be familiar with your information as well as theirs. And since they typically have the same information, it's proof that you're winning by your own skills.
...

Forgive me, but this position you've taken seems counter-intuitive:

1) If you're good at argumentation, but weak on research, you should focus on improving your research to compliment your argumentation skills. Focusing on developing something that is already a strength is not, in my opinion, a valuable use of practice time. It seems to me that a broad reading on the topic - which can then be tapped into with your already solid argumentation skills - would be an excellent use of prep time. That, and practice rounds to flush out viable arguments, which in turn help more narrowly focus future research efforts.

2) If your research consists only of looking for facts and statistics, then that might explain why you favor relying on packets/briefs (there is a difference between an evidence packet and a brief - which serve different purposes, but I'll not belabor that point right now). Research should include a broad reading on the subject. You should read opinion blogs, op-ed columns, analysis documents, academic reporting - especially abstracts and conclusion sections.... facts are useless without an understanding of the intricacies of the topic.

This also fails to mention the amount of information you've missed out on during the search. While looking for a single supporting quote for a position I'm taking on a topic, I might read 10 other articles that contain other points of view on the topic. I may not find them immediately useful on THIS point. However one or more of those discarded articles inevitably trigger a line of thinking that leads to another whole contention (and the evidence is in that article). Or it might give me insight into how others might attack my contention. or it might help me see a way to counter the other side. All of this is valuable - and lost if I just "buy the book".

Bottom line: Briefs are a crutch... like notecards to an Orator. Sure, they're helpful, but should never be relied upon as the end solution. Doing the research is more time consuming... but infinitely more valuable.

[JjulianSr]

Oh... one other creative use I've found for briefs (actually, the credit goes to a college debate partner of mine - now a coach in California) - knowing other teams will cite them, I use them as a starting point for researching. The names, article titles, etc., when plugged into Google can yield other related articles. Also, when queried along with the keys words "wrong, incorrect, flawed" and so forth, can produce a wealth of articles that cite the same source, then discredit its conclusions. All of this can be used either as direct refutation if the opponent uses the brief, or straight up supporting offense for your own case.

[Jeremy Johnson]

As a competitor, I was never at all attracted to evidence packets. Briefs can be helpful to develop some arguments (although I'd rather brainstorm and develop unique arguments on my own), but I see evidence packets as a crutch. I think argumentation and understanding peak when competitors comb over dozens of articles and expose themselves to many perspectives on a topic. It might just be me, but in Public Forum, I think evidence is important, yet I don't see it as the most important factor in the debate. I like to see good, sensible argumentation--not hundreds of cards like in policy. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind policy, but I think PuFo doesn't need evidence and packets like policy does. Just my two cents.

[MissInterpretation14]

Forgive me, but this position you've taken seems counter-intuitive:

1) If you're good at argumentation, but weak on research, you should focus on improving your research to compliment your argumentation skills. Focusing on developing something that is already a strength is not, in my opinion, a valuable use of practice time. It seems to me that a broad reading on the topic - which can then be tapped into with your already solid argumentation skills - would be an excellent use of prep time. That, and practice rounds to flush out viable arguments, which in turn help more narrowly focus future research efforts.

2) If your research consists only of looking for facts and statistics, then that might explain why you favor relying on packets/briefs (there is a difference between an evidence packet and a brief - which serve different purposes, but I'll not belabor that point right now). Research should include a broad reading on the subject. You should read opinion blogs, op-ed columns, analysis documents, academic reporting - especially abstracts and conclusion sections.... facts are useless without an understanding of the intricacies of the topic.

This also fails to mention the amount of information you've missed out on during the search. While looking for a single supporting quote for a position I'm taking on a topic, I might read 10 other articles that contain other points of view on the topic. I may not find them immediately useful on THIS point. However one or more of those discarded articles inevitably trigger a line of thinking that leads to another whole contention (and the evidence is in that article). Or it might give me insight into how others might attack my contention. or it might help me see a way to counter the other side. All of this is valuable - and lost if I just "buy the book".

Bottom line: Briefs are a crutch... like notecards to an Orator. Sure, they're helpful, but should never be relied upon as the end solution. Doing the research is more time consuming... but infinitely more valuable.

I can see where you are coming from with the focusing on the skills that are weaker. However, something I've discovered is just because you are good at something does NOT mean you should stop practicing. Not only does the skill require practice to maintain it, but a good skill can become an amazing skill with more time put toward it. I'm not sure why you assume that I meant a broad reading should be replaced with briefs. I completely agree with the statement about practice rounds. I think that's the most valuable thing I ever did when learning debate.

Again, I'm a little confused as to why you think I meant that briefs should eliminate all other research or general understanding. What I mean is that if you have a contention that you feel is solid, and you need a statistic to back up a particular statement, briefs make that instantly possible and I find them very useful in this regard.

I also understand what you are saying about researching one thing could lead to knowledge about other relative things. But isn't this contradictory to the point that one should get "good" at research? If you're honing your reasearch skills, doesn't that imply that you wouldn't end up reading ten articles before you found the one you wanted?

In the end, I think briefs/evidence packets (never knew the difference there, but I'm sure you know what I mean) are an excellent way to spark the thought process and a good resource for statistics on already well-strategized arguments. Briefs are filled with articles and written works - the same ones you might "accidentally" come across if you're doing more research. Also the point I made on other competitors using the briefs is extremeley useful. We've had rounds where we knew how to deflect all the arguments of other competitors because we'd seen all their evidence and heard all their contentions already.

I never said briefs should be completely relied upon, but rather as an assist. Think of it not as a crutch but rather a comfortable pair of shoes meant for racing. Not a way of cheating or replacing ability, but assisting it to hone the skills already present and speed up the process.

And now for a final and perhaps random point. I absolutely discourage relying on briefs and such to win, and I do support research of the general topic. However, on my first-ever tournament I was thrown into Public Forum the week before. I had absolutely no understanding of the topic and I only read one brief. In short, I didn't know what I was doing. My other competitors sensed my lack of knowledge and would come up to me between rounds, asking questions about the leaders of the countries involved and using vocabulary they knew I was ignorant of.
So I didn't know the topic, hadn't researched, and my opponents knew how weak I was. To make things worse, even though it was my first tournament I had to compete in Senior/Varsity. Yet my partner and I took first at that tournament. We beat other kids who knew the topic far more extensively than we did - some of them seemed to know everything! So clearly it wasn't the hardcore research that guaranteed success. My partner was a veteran debater but still didn't have a clear comprehension of the topic, but he took the lead in our rounds because he was a good debater and a persuasive speaker.
I'm not supporting what we did that tournament; we just didn't have the time to properly prepare. But the results of that tournament pretty clearly show that it is possible to win without the processes and methods you suggest.

Geez that was long haha

[JjulianSr]

Miss Interp,

It is clear from your discussion here that you are winning at PuFo by your skill in argumentation. If you refer to my original post (the one you replied to way back up there), you'll see my original claim: Briefs don't win, argumentation skill wins. Which explains why you won at your first PuFo tournament... by skill and not by the use or non-use of briefs.

I've won many a tournament with my approach (as have many of my students). It is possible to win with both strategies - self prep of store-bought prep. On this I agree with you. But that alone doesn't make one approach better than another.

However, now I switch modes from competitor to coach. Which method or process will do the most to TEACH a student how to debate better? Buying briefs to supplement skills, or spending time researching and reading on the topic?

My process takes longer, is harder, and takes effort to master. But I ask you this: When you get a job in the not-so-distant future for some company/non-profit/government agency, and you're posed a problem that needs a solution.... what brief book company will you turn to for the answer? The ability to research independently will set you apart and put you in a position to be successful. I have many years of real-world experience to back this up.

This is why I reject the use of store-bought briefs for PuFo. Both methods can win. One method simply has more advantages than the other.

Beyond this, I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.

Thanks for the debate. I enjoy seeing how the younger generation engages on discussions that actually mean something to this sport. It gives me hope that my efforts these last 22 years have not been in vain.

[Thomas Dewey]

I would say that planet debate has a pretty good packet
Planet Debate's PF briefs are a joke (http://www.cross-x.com/topic/50923-best-place-to-subscribe-for-evidence/page__view__findpost__p__837523). Don't waste your money.

[MorganTimm]

I don't know about in other areas, but where I debate - briefs are a joke. When a team uses them we are usually pretty confident we will win. Briefs imply the team's laziness and lack of preparation. You're better off taking the time to find your own unique evidence.

When you buy evidence, many teams are prepared to disprove every point the brief makes.

[BidRoundBriefs]

If you're dissatisfied with the current selection of PF Briefs, go to bidroundbriefs.com by December 1st and download our December Briefs for free!
For more information, visit our website and like our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/bidroundbriefs

[BidRoundBriefs]

https://www.facebook.com/bidroundbriefs?sk=wall
You'll get up to date information on future release dates, promotions, and any changes we decide to make to the briefs after receiving your feedback.

[JjulianSr]

Dear BidRoundBriefs,

It is not often that someone comes along who takes my criticism and turns it on its head. As many have read here, I am anything but fond of Briefs... especially in PuFo. I've bought a few and, frankly, the quality was very bad. BUT... we were faced with an urgent need this weekend as our team had to attend a tournament they weren't planning to attend. We bought the Dec brief book 2 days before the tournament and... all I can say is WOW. I'm impressed. These are not cookie cutter briefs that you can just run and win without thinking. They provide good insight into the topic and lots of potential arguments and ways of looking at the topic. Very well done and highly professional (not just random Google query results cut and pasted into a template).

My only criticism with this month's content is that much of the Con was taken from 3-4 sources, making it hard to appear like you have a diverse foundation of opinions in your case if you only used their briefs as your source library. Also, one of the main sources was listed as being published in the year 200. Which year in the first decade of the millennium we had to look up ourselves. But it gave us a quick ramp-up on the topic and some basic tools to build a case foundation on. And at $20... so worth it.

Thanks for finally taking the job of putting together briefs seriously. We will be returning for more later.

FYI - the two sophomores who I bought the briefs for... went 6-2 and dropped in Semis to a pair of TOC-qualified Seniors. Apparently they worked.

[tgjdlc]

Awesome!! I'll pass this on to our people! They'd love to read that!

[BidRoundBriefs]

Thank you for your feedback, we greatly appreciate it! Next month our briefs will have a greater diversity and quantity of evidence on both sides, and we'll make sure there are not any pesky typos.

[BidRoundBriefs]

Check out our site for more details, including our brand new subscription offers!
http://www.bidroundbriefs.com/

Like us on Facebook here for more updates!
https://www.facebook.com/bidroundbriefs

[DyBry13]

Dear BidRoundBriefs,

My partner and I have lots of success with the help of your briefs. We recently went 6-0 at our state qualifier with them in the box, and used some great evidence to pull through a couple of late rounds. I couldn't thank ya enough, and will definitely be buying again for CHSSA!