Policy debate is better than Public Forum debate.

Good luck to my opponent. I ask that anybody viewing operate behind a veil of ignorance, disregarding any preconceived biases towards either type of debate, even if those prejudices may benefit me. 1. Public Forum is centered on current events, meaning that there's usually not sufficient time for serious academic literature to be published on the topic. 2. With topics changing every month, Public Forum debaters don't get in-depth education, but rather a shallow view of the resolution. 3. Spreading in Policy debate allows for more arguments to be made within the time constraints. 4. Spreading weeds out weaker debaters and allows the most skillful to win. 5. A year-long Policy debate resolution allows debaters to engage in deep topic literature and learn the topic area forwards and backwards. 6. Policy debate is a simulation of real-world legislature. 7. Spreading isn't a useless skill - some state legislatures encourage speed-reading bills on the floor to increase efficiency. 8. CX debate exposes competitors to philosophy, unlike PF. While many PF debaters may think that including an Aristotelian quote in a case introduces them to philosophy, they haven't been truly enlightened until they've read serious academic work on ethics, whether it be in the form of post-modern of classical literature. 9. CX encourages debaters to have framework debates, discussing the importance and role of academic debate in everyday life. 10. Policy debate is usually rewarded with judges of higher caliber than is PF. 11. Cross-fire isn't nearly as educational as Cross-Examination, because it is more an extension of a speech than a questioning period. 12. PF is so bad that even it's creator, Ted Turner, abandoned it. 13. PF arguments often lack warrants, thereby committing Bare Assertion fallacies. 14. Without warrants, illegitimate arguments can be weighed those that are practical. 15. PF doesn't require impact analysis, meaning the judge's decision calculus is arbitrary and often biased. 16. PF cases lack normative structure. 17. PF arguments are often simplistic, lacking any real depth. 18. It's bad when judges would rather listen to NLD as opposed CPF. 19. PF debaters are often misguided by the thought they use more logic compared to Policy debaters. Unfortunately, the earlier-mentioned lack of warrants violates Aristotle's logical argumentation calculus, which is what Toulman's model is based upon. CX debaters are forced to display warrants, thereby avoiding this problem. 20. PF debaters claim that CX is too complicated and jargon-oriented, and yet fail to realize that to understand the complexity of these arguments and jargon requires a great degree of skill, unlike PF where everything is placed in universal, easy-to-understand terms. 21. PF debaters often complain that nobody can understand a CX round. I admit, PF is a spectator debate. And that's great for somebody who wants to see the typical stereo type of high school debate - two teams talking slowly about current events and generic/overused societal problems. CX draws a highly-specialized audience that understands the true value of Policy debate and can follow such debates. 22. CX debates cause those who understand them to experience adrenaline rushes and zeal of contest-round competition. 22. CX debaters often do much more work than PF debaters. PF debaters often 1) buy their "evidence" online and 2) lack the competitive drive to do as much work because they don't understand the adrenaline rush experienced in CX rounds. 23. Because of the inherent high-octane nature of CX, Policy debaters are often excited about new arguments they write, and are encouraged to write more. 24. Policy debate's use of abstract and high-level academic literature provides debaters with insight into philosophy and policy that can rarely be accessed in other debate formats (sometimes LD). For example, when's the last time you heard of Baudrillard or Spanos being run in PF? 25. Due to off-case strategies often utilized by the Negative, debaters are forced to figure out how different arguments interact in rounds (DA as a net benefit to a CP, or how the K compliments the Solvency Deficit). 26. Although PF may (sometimes) teach one to speak eloquently and appeal to a lay-style audience, the same speaking maneuvers can be picked up in UIL CX, if you are in Texas. Or, in any extemporaneous speaking tournament. The benefits gained from PF are non-unique, whereas most you would find in Policy debate are exclusive to CX. 27. By updating Uniqueness cards for disads (and sometimes Kritiks, depending on your circuit), debaters stay up-to-date with world politics/events. 28. In PF, switching partners isn't necessarily a big deal, as you are running generic arguments, and some (non-case) speeches are pre-scripted. In CX, partners need to get used to each other to truly be successful, for you have to extend the right arguments and make sure your partner can make their speech. 29. CX judges are more expensive for a reason - they're often (but not always) more qualified than PF judges. 30. PF was created to contrast Policy debate, and yet you see CX being integrated into Public Forum more every year. For the thirty aforementioned reasons, you must Affirm.