Post by Darwin on Nov 15, 2005 17:03:09 GMT -5
I really hope a lot of you try out Public Forum. It is a bit challenging but once you get the hang of it it becomes really easy and you'll soon find it easy to win points. Plus, if you do win, you get a nice looking tall trophy.
The Cross-Fire round of PF is your team's chance to shine. Be aggressive. If it is the Grand CrossFire, both teams could ask questions. Don't be the one answering all the questions. Keep your opponent at bay by hammering him with questions. You want to create an impression on the judge by showing him/her that you are in control. And the best way to show that is to constantly pound your opponents with questions.
You have to prepare TONS of questions to ask before the tournament. Then, during the actual round, listen carefully to your opponent's speeches. Write down every main point so you can refer back to it later. Whenever you write down a main point of your opponent's speech, try to come up with a question.
Advice #1:
The best way to be in control is to question the validity and credibility of your opponent's sources.
For example, last year, when John and I did Public Forum, we held a team from Dreyfus at bay by constantly questioning their sources' credibility.
it went something like this,
our opponent said, "...over 60,000 jobs were outsourced last year...,"
I said, "What source did you get that statistic from?"
They answered, "...from Forrester Magazine..."
Then, immediately, before he said anything else, I followed up with another question, "What credibility does Forrester have?"
To which they answered, "...they are a very popular magazine and have been around for a long time and they are voted by citizens to be the best news source around..."
Then immediately I asked, "...how do you know the magazine is not politically biased?"
Obviously there would be no way he would know if his source was biased or not because he's not the person who wrote the article and basically, everything is biased in some way so after a 30-second silence he answered,
"I don't know if Forrester is biased or not."
So I asked him, "Then how can you make an argument using sources that are biased? Wouldn't that make your entire argument irrelevant?"
And he replied, basically saying the same thing as before, "Well, it could be biased. I don't know if it's biased or not."
This went on for about another minute or so and then I just thought that the judge probably got the idea that our opponent doesn't know what he's talking about so I went on with another question, which again we turned it into follow up after follow up.
What you're trying to do, is to keep asking your opponent questions until he drives himself into a ditch, and the first question you should ask is question your opponent's sources. That should start you off and give you confidence into the round and start you off in control.
I'll try to post more advice as time goes on, but for now, good luck to all of you trying out PF.
The Cross-Fire round of PF is your team's chance to shine. Be aggressive. If it is the Grand CrossFire, both teams could ask questions. Don't be the one answering all the questions. Keep your opponent at bay by hammering him with questions. You want to create an impression on the judge by showing him/her that you are in control. And the best way to show that is to constantly pound your opponents with questions.
You have to prepare TONS of questions to ask before the tournament. Then, during the actual round, listen carefully to your opponent's speeches. Write down every main point so you can refer back to it later. Whenever you write down a main point of your opponent's speech, try to come up with a question.
Advice #1:
The best way to be in control is to question the validity and credibility of your opponent's sources.
For example, last year, when John and I did Public Forum, we held a team from Dreyfus at bay by constantly questioning their sources' credibility.
it went something like this,
our opponent said, "...over 60,000 jobs were outsourced last year...,"
I said, "What source did you get that statistic from?"
They answered, "...from Forrester Magazine..."
Then, immediately, before he said anything else, I followed up with another question, "What credibility does Forrester have?"
To which they answered, "...they are a very popular magazine and have been around for a long time and they are voted by citizens to be the best news source around..."
Then immediately I asked, "...how do you know the magazine is not politically biased?"
Obviously there would be no way he would know if his source was biased or not because he's not the person who wrote the article and basically, everything is biased in some way so after a 30-second silence he answered,
"I don't know if Forrester is biased or not."
So I asked him, "Then how can you make an argument using sources that are biased? Wouldn't that make your entire argument irrelevant?"
And he replied, basically saying the same thing as before, "Well, it could be biased. I don't know if it's biased or not."
This went on for about another minute or so and then I just thought that the judge probably got the idea that our opponent doesn't know what he's talking about so I went on with another question, which again we turned it into follow up after follow up.
What you're trying to do, is to keep asking your opponent questions until he drives himself into a ditch, and the first question you should ask is question your opponent's sources. That should start you off and give you confidence into the round and start you off in control.
I'll try to post more advice as time goes on, but for now, good luck to all of you trying out PF.