Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

Hello to my opponent, and a big thank you for your constructive speech! On that note; I want to make a profuse agreement that this debate will be friendly, so a note to the voters; please don't even mark on the "Conduct" voter. So off that note and on to another, I'm going to lay out my plan for this debate. 1. I'm going to present the Con stance 2. I will refute the Pro stance --- Con- When we think of a serious debate; one regarding say the future of the american citizens or one between two presidential candidates, or any kind of word e can actually understand- do we think of two people having a sincere and intelligent discussion that the common public would be able to recognize(Public forum); or do we think of four High School students carting 20 50 pound boxes of evidence around in order to run Kritikes (this is not mis-spelled), Counter-plans, and to split the negative block (do you even understand what that means?)? Unless you actually did Policy debate in high school (which accounts for approximately 2% of the human population) the answer is most likely the former of the two options. This is then is very sad when we realize how much of a dis-proportionate amount of appreciation that Puff actually gets, it's a debate style that sincerely breeds people to have an actual debate when they are out of high school. now I present you with several points furthering the Con stance 1. Only select people can actually understand policy debate- In policy debate there is a practice known as "spreading" where one speaks extremely quickly so they can read a 60 page case in 8 minutes. Combine this with the fact that their speech is almost not understandable and you completely lose any chance of having a debate. I will expand on this more in a later speech, but this is the gist of the argument here. 2. Puff debate is designed so the general community can Understand, Compete, or Judge a round- In fact in all actuality the debates that take place on this website are right about the same thing as Public Forum Debate. All people deserve the right to be able to understand a debate. Not only those who competed in it in High School or debate coaches. Whereas on the flip side, my opponent's stance on the matter is highly elitist, if you don't like to waste time on formalities and if you're just a common person who likes to debate, then apparently you and idiot. However we know this isn't true, being in a High School forensics event doesn't make you make you perfect, or even special to the rest of society. 3. Policy only covers policy topics, Puff can cover anything- In a Policy debate you can only policy issues; if you wanted to discuss morality, or philosophy, or value issues your up the creek with out a paddle in Policy, but not only that you can't just debate an issue and have your opinion heard. in policy you must also solve the issue, fund it, and set it into action. It falls away from being simply a debate and turns into an office job. Where as in Puff, you can debate policy topics, or you can debate morality, or Philosophy, you can debate anything! And it is just a debate; for those of use who just want to argue an issue (as we are doing now) they don't have to deal with all the formalities and proceeding that come with Policy 4. Policy cannot be better because that is a statement of not truth- In all reality my opponent cannot win this round; he is trying to make a statement of opinion and push it as fact. If CX where sincerely "better" then alternative forms of debate would not exist, such as Public Forum, or Lincoln-Douglas, or IPDA, or Parliamentary debate, or Congress. There would only be policy. with this I will cover my opponent's observations. Pro- First of all, My opponent provides no sources for his "quotes" something that he really should have learned if does Policy debate. We can't evaluate these; because we don't know that they're true. Instead I'm more apt to believe he just made these up. But not only that; he makes statements like "Wow, that novice Public Forum round was intense!" as though they where bad when he doesn't prove Puff is bad. Obs 1- First refer to my point how the debates on this site are essentially all Puff, second solving an issue isn't debate refer to my third point, finally Policy can't cover topics interesting to human nature; Love, Ideas, Philosophy- it only covers Policy. Obs 2- First, this point is entirely my opponent's own perspective and own view; he want you to believe that policy improves your over-all ability but he give you warrant in this point nor any kind of evidence to prove it is true. Disregard it. Obs 3- This point is completely tearing apart people who judge rounds who where not in debate in high school; if this applies to you, and you did not do debate in high school- then tell me through your vote; are you smart enough to tell whose won this round? Or are you (as my opponent would believe you are) a complete idiot? Personally I think your an intelligent human being who knows the right decision to make (also you have a great sense of style and beautiful inner personality) Obs 4- My opponent does not prove this first of all, it is just a claim without a warrant, secondly if he can't prove that Puff doesn't teach you any real world skills (like say having a debate that some-one could actually understand) then this point loses any and all impact. Obs 5- I ask you to consider the time of the following things a. constructive speeches- CX; 8 minutes, Puff; 4. Naturally more arguments will be made in twice the time. b. spreading- Kudos the the person who made 9 arguments in 4 minutes without spreading, Policy debaters must spread in order to get only a few decent arguments out while Puff debaters can make several quality arguments in only 4 minutes c. Quantity does not mean Quality- Sadly a technique used by Policy debaters is loading so many arguments on their opponents, that they don't have time to refute them. this doesn't make them a good debater, it just means they don't mind taking a cheap shot ti win d. round times- Policy; 1 hour and 30 minutes, Puff; 45 minutes. There is more time to debate in Policy, where there some kind of equalizer to the times this attack would actually be something you could consider, sadly it is not. Obs 6- My opponent is once again making arguments without either a warrant (ironic isn't it?) or any kind of evidence to back up his claim. He assumes that throwing out personal examples that he very well could have made up himself is a viable arguments. It is not, it holds absolutely no substance. Obs 7- First of all, again; no evidence, no warrant. Secondly in Cross-Fire actually allows for clash and back and forth debate, Cross-Examination only allows for some-one to get information they missed while their opponent was speaking a mile a minute. And the easiest way to waste some-ones Cross-examination period is to say "what" or "I don't understand you question" However this does not happen very often, because people understand that it is a cheap way to "win" and that it kills the debate. Finally let me end with an observation of my own- Con- Obs 1: This is a Public Forum debate, therefore my opponent even bothering to take part in it proves he recognizes that it has value and cannot say Policy is Better. Back to you Pro.