Talk:Public forum debate

Insertions of Strategy

Are insertions of strategy, etc., welcome/necessary?

Is the November 2005 resolve supposed to contain the word "never"? I hope I did this right. It's my first contribution.

Tournament Winners

Please, don't put the results of tournaments - even nationals - up on this page. There are dedicated websites for that. Randomtask (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help fast please

can you have more than one argument in your final focus? --Herzog 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally, you can do whatever you want except bring up new points. Jeremy

NFL says that there are two rules for FF: 1. You may not bring up new arguments. 2. You may bring up new evidence for old arguments. So, yes, you can have more than one argument. But, you definitely shouldn't. A good FF should convince the judge to vote for a certain side for one undeniable reason.

Exactly, the final focus is meant to narrow down the round to its most important argument. If you must cover 2 arguments, that is OK... just try to give a very persuasive speech on the biggest issue for your final focus. A persuasive speech on one big issue is much more effective than a rushed speech covering multiple arguments from the round. Blake93 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Final Verdict: In FF, no new arguments; no new evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.236.161.233 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

June 2006 Nationals Topic

Where did that come from. It's not on the NFL site...and that really shoudn't be released until May. Jeremy

sources

most information is good but it needs sites. also whether rebutal should be included in the second constructive is region specific BeckBoy Ak 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Research vs. Speaking

The information is good enough, though I disagree somewhat with the controversy of it being more about speaker tone than research. In my personal experience, both the judge and the opposing team will hit you hard for a lack of hard-evidence (backed up by sources), but I won't disagree that good speaking tone and control over enunciation. Wish us luck, we're the top ranked Novice (we're Freshmen) team, and we're on our way to nationals!

                                                               69.72.83.171 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Stonedecker Inc.

I know this isn't the comment you're looking for... But you need BOTH. Have credible sources and good evidence, but be able to convey it with a persuasive, conversational tone. Communication with the judge(s) is key. I went through many rounds earlier this year where we've had much more valid evidence, but our communication cost us the round. Now that we've fixed that issue and worked on our tone and persuasiveness while keeping the trend of good evidence, we're seeing much more success. Blake93 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

strats

I think that per Policy Debate, we might want to include strategies, resources, etc. on this page. Any thoughts? --Lakerdonald 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Qualm with a statement on the page.

"Public Forum Debate more recently has developed into a format more similar of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and Policy Debate, in the sense that rather than using the old "coin toss" method, the "pro" and "con" sides are pre-determined."

That's from the article.

This is from the NFL website: "A Public Forum Debate round begins with a flip of a coin between the competing teams to determine your side and speaker position."

If they're using LD-style predetermined matchups, they're violating NFL policy... right? I didn't want to edit the page without putting this out here for discussion to verify that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.135.93 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. NFL rules require the coin toss, whereas NCFL, which just adopted PFD this past year, locks sides, God knows why (literally, I suppose). This should be cleared up. (At least "similar of" should become "similar to.") Everyday847 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to inconsistency in choosing the sides (some people would go an entire tournament on one side) the NFL has decided to lock sides and thus the coin toss is just to choose who speaks first and second instead of choosing the side and speaker position. AHS DEBATE FOREVER!TaSluder6 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not True. The coin toss is still used to determine side and speaker order. I just debated Pro three times and con once this Saturday; I should know. I'm not sure where people are getting this - obviously some schools are trying to be "innovative" or some such nonsense. Here's from the Public Forum FAQ from NFL: "Q Why not just alternate sides?

A Invitational tournament directors may choose alternation but NFL suggests flipping. Alternating sides locks the pro as first speaker and the con as last speaker. It is much fairer for students to have the choice of side or speaker position. All NFL contests will use the flip."

Actually, its the discression of the tournament. Most local branches of the league allow for flipping, though some lock it. It varies, also, from league to league, and area to area. We are all right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.228.139 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

we dont have to take it no more

We are born and live anywhere between 30 and 90 years. The goverment in this country trys to make us hate each other so they can control us. If we would stand together as ONE we could take back control of OUR country. Yes this is our country and we let these rich jackasses tell us what we can and cant do. Well I say to hell with them i will do what I want and everyone else should to.If we stand together we can accomplish anything and everything we want. so Please stand with me and lets take our country back sincerely Arthur S.bolin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.197.45 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

^ WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.57.72.13 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Public forum debate can be compared to a nationally-televised debate, such as Crossfire

Is it wise to compare this to a now defunct television program? 97.126.56.74 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mechanics section blanked

Why was this done, and should it be restored?Kevince59 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

4 minutes for prep?

PF judges at Yale 2015 were specifically instructed by the tab director to ignore the pdf cited in the previous version of this page, and give 2 minutes per team, not 4. (Whether it was simply a mistake in the invite or the intention was 4 minutes total in the round i.e. 2 per side, is unclear.) There was similar confusion at Penn this year - regardless of anything written, the in-person judge instruction was 2 minutes per side. I don't know of any tournaments that actually give 4 minutes per side but perhaps there are some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.181.186 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public forum debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519175935/http://debateclash.com/2015/05/public-forum-debate-format/ to http://debateclash.com/2015/05/public-forum-debate-format/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Radical cuts

Ping ZI Jony; it seems to me as well as removing the list of previous resolutions, we should trim the rest of the article radically. Practically none of it appears in the sources given and much of it is not suitable for inclusion (including all the stuff about how marvellous it is). What do you think? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast; I totally agree with you. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. There's not much left since it turns out the article actually only has one cite. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining this page as a resource

Hello. I don't personally know the people who I seem to be going back and forth with at the moment, but allow me to introduce myself. I'm a current member of the debate community, where I both compete in tournaments and coach my fellow debaters on my school's team. I have also been involved in other debate formats, but have always remained dedicated to PF. I currently compete both at a local and national level, as do my students. This page has been extremely useful to me throughout my personal career as a debater, giving me the foundation for understanding the format and becoming more dedicated to debate as a whole, and has also served as an important resource for coaching, as I've looked to explanations of mechanics of this format, as well as used the list of resolutions for team practice debates and constructing mini spar tournaments. I am personally new to editing Wikipedia, but would be happy to dedicate much more time to maintaining this page.

I do not know how much experience either of the other two users have with public forum debate. Regardless, here's some key information about how public forum as a format functions.

• Public forum is a debate format. I'm sure from editing this page, you understand how public forum debate functions and how rounds play out. For examples of a round, search "PF Videos" on youtube and watch one of the debates there.

• Public forum is a community-driven event. This is true for many debate events, but especially so for public forum. While there are some centralized authorities, such as the NSDA, the NCFL, the NDCA (less involved in PF than in other formats), and the TOC committee, the format itself on a smaller level is driven by community organizers. These range from debate coaches, tournament directors, and the students themselves. An example of this can be seen in the recent changes to topic selection - not only have debaters and coaches been allowed to vote on the potential topics for each month, but now individuals can submit resolutions and support them to the topic committee, allowing the community to exercise greater influence over the resolution selection process. Why does this matter? Public forum should continue to be community-driven. The benefits of this page are shared by the community, and additional benefits to the community can be realized by adding and expanding upon this page. Not only this, but many important information from public forum is not formally codified, but remains in community conventions that have been put forth by members such as debaters and coaches.

• Public forum varies wildly. While public forum is a nationwide format, individual circuits vary in rules, conventions, styles, and tournament structures. This is seen when looking to the significant differences between, say, a local NCFL circuit, and a national invitational. While local tournaments can be sidelocked or may have only four rounds in a single day, national tournaments will typically flip for sides, judges will disclose after rounds, and have break (elimination) rounds. Why does this matter? First, making a page for public forum debate must be aware of these wide-ranging perspectives and differences, and while overall structures are usually similar (speech times, overall judge paradigm), it's important to note distinctions within the page. Information that's almost universal can have exceptions, and many debaters remain on their local circuits for their entire career. It's important to ensure debaters do not get the sense that parts of public forum are universal. Second, and more importantly, it's difficult to properly refer to information that's so varied for so many. The general governing body for public forum, the NSDA, has a general rulebook, but many of these rules do not address conventions on an individual level. The mechanics page for public forum is only a few pages long! In fact, the only really comprehensive resource that's easily available is UVM's "Guide to Public Forum Debate," which as expected, addresses one style of public forum debate that does not fully encompass different conventions debaters may encounter, especially at a national level.

• Public forum is changing quickly. Public forum is the most recently format (BQD doesn't count), and with its rapid growth, significant changes to the activity have come. For example, the final focus speech was changed from being one minute long to two minutes, dramatically shifting the content in later speeches. Changes can be more recent as well, as evidenced by the recent proposed changes, ranging from simple changes like additional prep time, to radical changes like shifting the order and times of speeches and locking sides for all debates. Why does this matter? First, due to public forum's changing situation, continual changes are necessary to keep the page relevant and updated. Second, to maintain this page, it is highly important that debaters or members of the debate community be deeply involved, or this page will quickly lose usefulness. I know from experience how dedicated debaters can get to this activity - I personally spend the majority of my free time on research and writing. Many people outside the activity may be unaccustomed to the conventions and complexities of public forum debate (while to a lesser degree than other formats, but still to a significant one). Third, the changes in public forum demonstrate the necessity of a resource like this page. By providing a centralized location for important information about the format, this page can serve a useful role in the debate community.

The fundamental question that must be addressed before the proposed changes is what should the purpose of this page be? I believe this page should aim to achieve several functions.

1. Give outsiders an understanding of how public forum debate functions. This function is necessary, but importantly, is achieved through the other functions. By giving introductory information about the format, and by providing additional information relevant enough to the format to be useful to the community, debate outsiders can understand the nuances of this community.
2. Provide introductory information to the mechanics and format of public forum. This is a crucial use of this page, as I can personally testify to. While this function may not benefit experienced debaters or those outside the format, for individuals just learning debate, especially in underfunded and underresourced programs, resources like this page are crucial to giving introductory information to debaters. Not only would a fleshed-out page give information about the format itself, it would serve as a sort of launching pad for newer debaters, which is key since debaters coming from less privileged programs lack information about how to explore and further learn about the format. As this sort of resource, the page can provide a beneficial social function, educating novices about how public forum works, allowing debaters without coaches or upperclassmen mentors to further themselves in the format. I believe this is the most important role the page can serve, as it gives direct benefits by acting as a more up-to-date resource compared to many of the information debate programs rely on throughout the US. The depth of, for example, the policy debate page helped me when I tried policy debate (which was admittedly shortlived, but helped nonetheless).
3. Provide a resource for the public forum community. For more established debate communities, the wikipedia page can serve as a centralized, useful resource. Whether for teams that have established infrastructure and merely need a place for useful information, or for teams that are just getting started who need reference to both basic and advanced information about the format, the page can serve as a vital resource for a community that needs it. This page can serve a larger community, and this function would help both my own team as well as teams across the country.

As a member of the public forum community, I firmly believe this page should not be cut, but should be expanded upon to fulfill a larger role in the general and public forum community. I welcome any critiques you may have or further discussion of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cut card (talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT may help here. Wikipedia is not a source of free web space for public forum debaters to keep material of interest to other public forum debaters.

More specifically, what needs to be removed here is (at a minimum) all uncited material (which includes almost everything) and anything in a non-neutral tone (all the stuff describing how marvellous public forum debate is). Pinkbeast (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

What constitutes excessive detail?

Useful information has been removed based on the general assertion that it's "minituae" or "excess detail." I've read some of the linked pages about what should and should not be included, and the material added by other users seems appropriate. I'd like to see a greater justification for the mass removal of content like speech times or argument types, one that goes beyond vague references to excess. Additionally, what motivates this specific drive on the Public Forum page? The information presented does not differ much in content from the content of other debate format pages, and is tiny in comparison to the Policy pages. What justifies stripping the article to the point that any user would be unable to gauge the general sense of PF's structure, debates, or content? Please add a reasoned justification of your actions, they remain uncertain to myself and many other members of the PF debate community.

Cut card (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - that other pages have this kind of thing does not justify putting it here.

As far as I can see, disinterested editors feel it shouldn't be included. From my point of view, it suffices to say that the debates pertain to current affairs - a listing of previous topics is not necessary; and "short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "crossfire" sections" is quite sufficient to describe it, without a mass of what amounts to instructional material about exactly how to hold such a debate. QuiteUnusual and ZI Jony, the other apparently disinterested editors involved, seem to agree.

As a member of the "community" you will naturally tend to overestimate the importance of this sort of detail. "Wikipedia is not a source of free web space for public forum debaters to keep material of interest to other public forum debaters" was true last time this came up, and it's still true now.

Incidentally, please do not abuse the minor edit facility. You should only mark an edit as minor if it is obviously uncontroversial. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see much relevant information on that "other stuff exists" page that talked about specific content, just about the pages' existence or non-existence. The other pages just serve as a precedent for having more information than a generalized description of this format.

I don't see a justification for removing descriptive information. I doubt from the description given, you'd be able to accurately describe the nature of workings of a public forum round. Additional depth about how the format works, no matter how "instructional" it seems to some, gives important contextualization for a reader interested in public forum. I see some justification for removing certain parts that might not be necessary, but the continual removal of clarifying information about the topic structure, or the purposes of the round seems off. (As a side note, QuiteUnusual merely wanted to pause the edit war, not necessarily agreeing with paring down this article.)

I accept that this is true to some extent, but I suspect that your zealous attitude about cutting this article down may cause you to overlook some important information about this format.

I don't believe my recent edits are controversial to almost any extent. While one edit overlooked a different part of the article, others are merely adding information that was in cites and removed. If anything, your use of the minor edit feature seems suspect, given that many of your edits have been reverted. Discuss them here!

Overall, I'd just like to see a more in-depth justification for removing these parts. Explain more deeply your warranting why you get to be the arbiter of a material's "triviality" and why that justifies its removal.

Cut card (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The same principle applies - just because you can find unnecessary detail on other pages does not justify its inclusion here.

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. A reader does not need an exact account of the format of the rounds.

I don't misuse the minor edit facility. None of my edits here have been marked as minor. You do misuse it; undoing another user's edit can never be minor.

I have not appointed myself the sole arbiter. Three separate disinterested editors have removed this stuff; no disinterested editor has even suggested it be reinstated. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, this just goes back to my other point, which you should really interact with more.

I think you entirely miss the point I made in my previous statement. While Wikipedia itself is not an instruction manual, the ability of information to be construed as instructional is not an independent reason to remove it. Information on this page is not added to be instructional, but its instructional function is merely a side effect, or benefit, of the main purpose of informing any reader about public forum, more than an extremely surface-level overview of the "idea" of the debate. Even the information presented does not get even close to describing "how to hold a round" or get into the real workings of public forum, which I could write about for pages and pages. I merely suggest that information beyond a glancing, absurd summary should be added to better clarify the format of public forum.

My mistake, I confused the "minor edit" with the non-bolded byte change. Will use less often.

Strong disagree. Every other editor besides yourself who has removed portions of this page have been removing only the long list of resolutions, and have left the information about the mechanics and speeches of public forum intact. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_forum_debate&diff=853742353&oldid=853742048, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_forum_debate&diff=860402556&oldid=860402102. Since the "radical cuts" made, myself and other editors have added additional cites and clarified portions to be supported by these cites. The information presented before being cut serves to better describe the format, without getting into the extreme nuances of the format that I was tempted to add.

Cut card (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously instructional material. The reader has no other reason to need to know this sort of minituae, and it should not be added unless disinterested editors think it should. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not interacting whatsoever with what I've put forth. Given your terse and generic response, I find it extremely difficult to believe you've actually read what I've said. Material that can serve an instructional purpose is not dedicated solely to instruction, and can be externally beneficial regardless of its instructional value. I also find it difficult to believe you read the details of what my last edit was, as it cut down on the specifics of how the round works, descriptions of the speeches, as well as additional information about the external workings of the round. Please talk to me rather than repeating the same rehashed phrase.

Cut card (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add. In my view this doesn't belong in the article. There is no reason to suppose any disinterested editor wants it to be in the article. Therefore, it stays out unless, at some point, disinterested editors favour insertion. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see some onus placed on you to articulate exactly why this does not belong in the article. I've given several reasons why the material merits inclusion, as well as responded to your "instructional" points. Just saying "that's my opinion" is not sufficient to justify removal, especially in the face of my own and other editors' arguments for inclusion. Please elaborate further than a few sentences, as that's what this talk page is for.

Cut card (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad. I've made my position clear; I'm not inclined to reiterate it endlessly just to satisfy you. Wikipedia has a number of dispute resolution processes you can try. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think a reason that many public forum debaters are frustrated with the constant content removal from this page is that the format and topics of a debate type really serve to define it. we're not trying to set out an instruction manual, but rather show what public forum debate is. an instruction manual would be far more complex. RBGMacaroni (talk)

They do, but they are already covered; "short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "crossfire" sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters" describes the format, and "a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue" describes the topics. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's incredibly reductive and significantly underestimates the complexity of the debate. For example, this video can reductively be described as "four peoples discussing the internet of things," but that fails to accurately describe the discussion taking place. Information that could be construed as "instructional" for having a similar debate serves merely to better describe the format.

I find it difficult to believe that you truly believe a barebones description like the one given accurately describes the format. From that, users would have a difficult time generalizing the process of a round, getting an understanding of what goes on, and would certainly be unequipped to give a good description of one.

I believe your position takes a true generalization (Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual) and takes it too far, to the point that any information that could potentially be instructional is removed. Acknowledge that information that's useful to a user outside of its instructional value could have additional instructional value. The information is there because it serves to describe the format of public forum, and not because it's meant to instruct a reader on how to debate themselves.

Cut card (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You have made your position nominally clear but have not made clear the justifications behind it. Simply stating that your position is that it's "instructional material" is not sufficient justification. The talk page should be used to work out these disagreements, no? Please engage.

I'll look to some of the dispute resolution processes, thanks. Cut card (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made it perfectly clear; you just don't like the answer. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Unsupported. I dislike your answers since they are inadequately justified. It seems to me that you're just skimming my answers and not interacting fully with what I'm saying. I've elaborated in a response above, but the importance of holistic focus should be taken into account. Looking only to a piece of information's "instructional value" as the criterion for being removed is insufficient, and ignores the additional benefits of its inclusion.

You have made continued references to yourself as a "disinterested editor." It seems to me (and other users) that your disinterest has been taken too far. Your engagement with this page has been terse, vague, and ignores the finer details in both the edits and the talk pages. This halfhearted engagement with the page is discouraging to myself and other editors. What I'd like to see is a deeper justification of the idea that "instructional" material should be removed at all costs, as well as deeper engagement with the specifics of the edits and justifications made by myself and others.

Cut card (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This page was the first one I edited on Wikipedia and my edits were removed, though they consisted only of the format (time allotments) of public forum debate. As someone who has done PFD, "short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "crossfire" sections" does not adequately describe public forum. I agree with the other editors in this talk section that you have only said that it might be used as instructional material, but many things "might" be used as instructional material. If this debate was over a section on "how to write a case" then I would agree it should be removed, however material that is essential to the topic should not be removed. The so-called "instructional" material in this article that has been repeatedly deleted is only instructional in the way that certain Wikipedia pages on math could be instructional to a math class. (That's probably a bad example, I'm new to Wikipedia) If this is any point resolved, I would be happy to add sections on the format of PFD as well as a list of previous and current topics, however as this will be removed I see no point in currently doing so. If I did this wrong, it's my first time, sorry. I agree with those in this topic who have argued against many of these details being excessive detail.

FrodoTheRingBearer (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Quibble over NSDA deciding topics

I don't believe the page has to say "the NSDA serves is the sole arbiter of topics" verbatim to prove that the NSDA is the one who decides topics. The cite does make it clear that the NSDA's wording committee, after accepting proposals and votes, releases the public forum topics. Sorry if myself or other editors haven't made this clear enough, as to literally every debater who has done public forum before, the idea that anyone but the NSDA would determine topics is alien. I can do my best to dredge up other sources about the NSDA determining topics, but I think the NSDA's own topic page, detailing the selection process, is sufficient. Cut card (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't since it doesn't say that the NSDA is the sole arbiter of topics. If that is to be put in, it must be cited. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, I find it difficult to believe you really read the linked page. In addition to the quotes I gave when I added the edit, here are a lot of quotes that pretty explicitly detail the NSDA's topic process. To help with your understanding, I've added explanations of each quote.

"Help us determine the two April Public Forum resolutions for the India topic area." Shows the NSDA's role in drafting topics, and debaters' roles in submitting those topics. Explicitly says NSDA determines topics.

"The PF Wording Committee chooses a number of debate topics at its summer meeting. These areas are then used throughout the school year. During the last week of the month (or seven days prior to the topic release date), chapter advisors and member students may vote for one resolution to be used as the next PF topic." This shows the NSDA's role in determining the topic areas at the beginning of the year, to give the debaters guidance for the potential resolutions for each year. This quote also emphasizes the NSDA's role, as no outside influence is mentioned and the wording committee itself is selecting them. Topics are then narrowed down to resolutions during the months of the season.

"...submit specific topic wording suggestions for consideration by the PF Wording Committee." Shows the NSDA's committee, and its consideration of suggestions. Points out the NSDA's final decision by referencing its consideration of the topics submitted.

"...the Board of Directors unanimously agreed to pilot a November/December topic for Public Forum Debate..." To support the NSDA's role in determining topics, the page shows the NSDA determines the mechanics of the topics, and their application to the debate itself.

"In response to the community’s interest in becoming more involved with the topic writing process, the NSDA and the Public Forum Wording Committee will welcome resolution ideas." This body determines the topics, based on submissions. Additionally shows that previously, the NSDA determined topics without outside influence, but has changed now.

"Approximately 6 weeks before the release date, the NSDA will release the topic area." The NSDA determines and releases the topic areas (general topics that resolutions fall under).

"...the community can submit a resolution through the NSDA website..." The NSDA gets all the resolutions submitted to it.

"...the PF Wording Committee, using community input, will discuss, narrow, and produce two resolutions for that topic." Pretty explicit that the NSDA is the one who is the determinant of what topics are chosen and released.

"The NSDA will release the resolutions on the 23rd, or one week before the topic release date..." The NSDA releases the resolutions that they have determined.

"The NSDA will release the resolution on the 1st of the month preceding the date for debates on that topic." The NSDA, with the resolution that they've determined (based on votes that users submit), sends out the resolutions to the community. They are then used for debates around the country.

My question to you is this: if the NSDA is not "the sole arbiter of topics," who is? What other organization applies any outside influence on the NSDA's topic selection? (Where did you get this phrase "the sole arbiter of topics" anyway? You've used it a lot and I don't know where it comes from.)

I've given significant material here to detail the NSDA's role in determining topics, all from the cite that was originally linked. These quotes are even explained in full. If you truly believe the NSDA doesn't determine the topic areas and resolutions, I highly encourage you to interact with what I'm saying rather than deleting with a terse reply that clearly does not take anything into account. Read this! It's very informative!

Cut card (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What you've tried to insert is to the effect that essentially all PF debaters use the NSDA's topics (which may well be true, but to go in the article, it has to be cited). What your cite shows is that the NSDA prepares topics which _some_ PF debaters use. These are not the same thing. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's some responsibility for your view. All the quotes point to the NSDA determining the public forum resolution for each month (or two months). Through several years of debate, I have never seen a single tournament use topics other than them. I can give a long list of prominent national tournaments, as well as small local tournaments, that use the NSDA topic, but it's not possible to prove that literally every single debate in the country uses these topics. What I can do is give you the evidence that I've presented (which I again doubt you read...) that points to the widespread use of and NSDA's role in determining resolutions.

This would be much easier if you backed up your side -- are there any tournaments, any competitions, or any organizing bodies that use any other public forum topic besides the NSDA's? Please note them.

(Additionally, since you seem to have shifted your stance from "the NSDA doesn't determine topics" to "not everyone uses the NSDA's topics," I assume the point about the NSDA deciding topics is settled, irrespective of their use?)

Cut card (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not my stance now and it wasn't my stance then. What I'm saying is that you don't have a cite to establish it. And, before you go off and insert material to the effect that the NSDA determines topics that some debaters use - no; anyone could pick topics that some debaters use. There needs to be a cite - ideally, an independent one - to demonstrate that the NSDA's topics are widely used and hence that they are important to the process. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

First, on this idea that "anyone can pick topics that some use," I again challenge you to find a single example of that happening in public forum debate -- if it's as easy or simple as you say, examples should be easy to come by. (They aren't.) Far more widespread are the massive numbers of public forum tournaments that use the official NSDA topic for each month.

Here's some additional evidence. I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU READ IT.

Public forum rulebook: states that resolutions for the district tournaments (as well as the National tournament, with hundreds of entries in public forum) are done by the NSDA.

Public forum guide: Already cited in the page, but it states that the NSDA's topic is used in public forum debate tournaments.

Another public forum guide: States that the NSDA is determines topics for public forum, determined by their topic committee.

Here are some tournaments, round robins, and camps that use the NSDA topic.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=11622

https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=11058

https://www.nationaldebateforum.com/intensive

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tabroom-files/tourns/9425/postings/11822/TarheelForensicLeagueStateManualUpdate18-2-19.pdf

https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=10796

https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=9051

If you'd like me to cite the hundreds of monthly tournaments that all use the NSDA's topic, that should suffice to show how widespread it is. I don't think that should be necessary.

Cut card (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That challenge is absurd. It's up to you to find cites for material you want to include. It is not up to me to disprove something which I have said repeatedly may well be true, but where the objection is that it is uncited.

Now you've made some progress, inasmuch as you're actually trying to find some cites. The first one I looked at is [1]. "NSDA" and "National Speech" appear nowhere in this document; it says new topics appear at [2], a now-defunct website.

This does not incline me to wade through the rest; how about you pick just one that actually justifies what you want to include, rather than wasting my time and the time of anyone else reading this on a wall of links you manifestly haven't actually checked yourself? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The NSDA used to be called the National Forensics League, found at nflonline.org. When the organization was renamed the National Speech and Debate Association, the website changed. The entity remained the same. https://web.archive.org/web/20141020125923/http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/documents/newsDetail.aspx?newsid=115&navid=&pnavid=

I should have included that in the original post. I believe several other sources make reference to the NFL, but they're all talking about the same organization. I've read through all of the sources linked, and you definitely should as well.

Cut card (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I should probably have foreseen this reply. Once again, the question is not whether that is so; the question is whether it can be cited. You can't cite information about the NSDA to a source that literally doesn't mention it, unless you accompany it with a cite about the name change.

So, no, I'm not going to waste my time looking through the whole list when you plainly couldn't be bothered to check them yourself. Pick one or two.

Also, you seem to consistently labour under the impression you're trying to prove something to me. You're not; you're trying to find a cite for the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue with this comes from a point that I went into more detail previously - the decentralization of debate authorities. Apart from the NSDA itself, and some additional organizational bodies (e.g. NCFL), centralized debate authorities largely don't exist. Individual programs and independently run tournaments make up the bulk of public forum debate, hence the multiple sources stating the same thing rather than the single one. The best "single source" would the the NSDA's topic page, but you seem to reject that, so I gave a list of (decentralized) sources to independently verify the fact that the NSDA topic is used widely.

If you'd like, I can link my own school's public forum instruction manual as a source to verify that the NSDA's topic is used by pretty much everyone, but I don't think that'd be appropriate. That, or the NSDA topic page, would likely be the most holistic source.

I did read through all of these sources. Each of them has a quick explanation of the part that shows the uses of the NSDA topic. I'm happy to include the cite I linked (it's actually the cite from the NSDA's own Wikipedia page) to accompany some of those cites, as you said.

In the end, I think it's sufficient to either (a) use one of the sources, which generally says that the NSDA determines the topics, which was the original claim in the article, or (b) link a couple hundred tournament sites to show its widespread use. I don't think the explicit phrase "the NSDA is the sole arbiter of the topic that is used by every debater in the nation" has to be said by the article, only that the NSDA determines the public forum topic. Remember the actual claim the cite was originally supporting!

Cut card (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I regret that for personal reasons I was largely unable to edit (at all) when the dispute resolution process on this article started. However, on reviewing it, I find RobbieM13 wrote that "as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive". I disagree, but unless some other editors also feel this is excessive detail at a later date, I think it is incumbent on me to accept RobbieM13's suggestion and leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: I hope all is well in your personal life. I appreciate you being mature about my suggestion. I agree that if other editors think it is excessive detail it should be changed. RobbieM13 (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)