Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

Jut as my opponent has done, I will cover the Pro, then the Con Pro- Obs 1 First of all that's not what a Kritike is, in a kritike you Critique the resolution, and while this is definately a deviation to the majority of what Policy is, you don't cover actual Philosophy. Never once in a policy round have I heard Thales, SOCRATES, PLATO, or ARISTOTLE quoted. Obs 2 "Generally known" is not only a statement that shows my opponent's own arogant nature in terms of this debate, but this Observation does not cover the debate, but the debaters. And while this observation is wrong on so many levels in it's own way, I won't cover it. It's an off topic argument that does nothing to further this debate A. I have never done Policy in my life, so this is to the voters, am I weeding out "stupid" arguments and taking out all parts of my opponent's arguments? B. So do many people, once again this argument is arrogant and off topic. C. Need I say anything more here? I could say I have "personal experiances" that the creater of Policy debate came to me and told me how much he regretted putting such a harm onto the world, and agrees that Puff is better. Personal experiances, you don't ha to believe it though. Obs 3 My opponent is changing up his opinion here, I said you where all smart and beautiful first! but not only that, you have a beautiful inner person and make great cookies. Second, by a non-experianced judge that is exactly what he means. The point is Puff doesn't discriminate against those of us who never got the oppurtunity to debate in High school, Policy does. Obs 4 a. Extend my refutations on obs 1 b. The following jobs are things that use skills gained in puff debate, Debate coach, Politician, Lawyer, Appologeticist. In fact a little point I'd like to throw out there Ted Turner, founder of CNN created Puff debate. Obs 5 a. Apparantly there was an A that my opponent dropped b. First of all my opponent agrees that these arguments are quality, but again I want to textend this point, Puffers get less time to debate; in fact the Puff debate topic changes every month, whereas the Policy only changes once a year. Policy debaters are not some kind of prodigy as my opponet would have you believe, they're just cocky and get more time to prepare. http://www.nflonline.org... c. Which they need an entire year to be able to actually do. extend me refutations on b. here d. first no warrant, second no refutation, finally no impact Obs 6 First, no warrant, no Imperical evidence, nothing. I could quote the Policy national champion as saying "I think that fact I'm wearing a suit is proof enough" that doesn't make it true now does it? Second how big of a school is this? 1A 2A 3A 4A or 5A? I once knew a girl who took third place in 2a LD her first year in debate after only being in debate for a few weeks. Obs 7 No warrant, that cross-fire period is just as important as a CX period. and you can wast it just as easily. second, a sexual innuendo? really? Let's keep this debate respectable we see the we still have no reason to vote Policy, so I will not defend my own case Con- Obs 1 No, first of all that is exactly what you are arguing, second http://www.cross-x.com... has online Policy debate and they get much less trafic than DDO, the reason is because the common man likes to debate without having to worry about all of the formalities that accompy Policy. One the policy turning Puff argument; I sincerely doubt that my opponent understands what a warrant is at this point. I guess that's just as sad sad side effect of Policy. All the sam, no warrant. 1. Only a select few can actually understand policy That doesn't refute the claim or the argument I'm making, my opponent is just trying to push that every-one shoud learn and policy regardless of prefrence. 2. Puff debate is designed so the general community can Understand, Compete, or Judge a round- first extend my refutations on 1, second elitism is not inevitable, we just need to realize that both Puff and Policy are just different forms of the same thing, debate. Neither is better than the other, and the same logic applies to the people doing the debate. 3. Policy only covers policy topics, Puff can cover anything- I agree let's debate something fun, like whether Kittens are cute or not. I say they are! Sadly my opponent has still yet to adress my case, instead he assumes that Policy is better, and guess he prefers not to get his hands dirty debating without 30 some odd tubs of evidence. 4. Policy cannot be better because that is a statement of not truth- Honestly I'm beginning to be disapointed on how little my opponent is attacking my case, the fact is this argument stands in stark negation of the entirity of my opponent's previous argumentation. We are not debateing opinions, but which is Better. for all of these reasons I urge a Con Vote