(1) Main benefit of 3 min summaries has been to create more balance in the PF partnership, so first speakers have a more important role to play in the round and cannot be as easily “carried” by second speakers. KEEP THIS RULE
(2) Addit prep has been helpful to teams. KEEP
(3) I don’t think this has made much difference. Paraphrasing should be allowed because that is how most ordinary people actually discuss/debate things in the real world. Very few times will a politician or civic leader or pundit actually quote a study or anything.
(4) I think crossfires and grand crossfires have generally gotten more civil and balanced and productive.
The main comment I want to make though is that we are entering a critical period now with PF. We need the NSDA to make it clear that PF must stay true to its original purpose of being an event for the lay person to be able to judge. IF THE NSDA DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS (KRITIKS AND THEORY) SHOULD NOT BE INTRODUCED IN PF ROUNDS, VERY SOON YOU WILL HAVE TWO DISPARATE STYLES OF PF, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TRADITIONAL LD AND PROGRESSIVE LD. The debate community should learn from the past experience (i.e., what has happened to LD) and NOT let that also happen to PF.
Those students who want to run progressive arguments should just go to policy or LD. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make some kind of official statement that PF arguments should pertain to the topic of the resolution and judges should judge PF teams based on how well they advocate for their side of the resolution.
Once the door is opened to nonresolutional arguments, the lay judge will be left in the dust…