Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

All right, Before I begin, this is going to be a friendly debate. So know that I don't really hate Pf, But I am going to seriously rag on it. But you can tell how serious I am fm my definition As defined by Urban Dictionary, Public Forum Often referred to as PF by real debaters, this joke of a debate is for those who lack the intellect and intelligence to do Lincoln-Douglas (LD) or policy debate (CX). Public Forum is centered on current events, and is not focused on debate, rather speaking casually without actually learning anything. The team who wins is the team who can sound more like an idiot for the judge. Public Forum has no complex arguments like Topicality, Theory, Disads, K's, or CP's. The only three worse things are Congress, Parliament, and... Novice Public Forum. "Dude, I just qualified for nationals in Public Forum!" "Really?" "Yeah, and I've never even debated before!" "Wow, that Novice Public Forum round was intense!" "..." "I'm such a persuasive debater in Public Forum, I can show you why oil spills cause fish to die!" - Actual Public Forum guy Observation 1: In Pf, all you do is complain about a problem. In policy, You actually have to set up a plan, with the ability to solve. We actually tackle a problem, and see real world solutions to solving said problem, We look at potential impacts, Some real (rape, dehumanization) and some not so real (Nuclear war). You also have diversity of arguments. If you don't like the plan, you can amend it by running A pic (plan inclusive counterplan). Observation 2: Policy improves your abilities to do other events. The first time I did PF, I went undefeated against last year's state runner-ups. And, the last time I did PF, I went 4-1 and only lost to this year's state champs. Plus, policy (at least in my state) is taking over Pf and LD. You can now run a framework in PF and alot of LD people spread. Plus, all policy people in my school break when they do other events- PF, LD, extemp. Observation 3: Pf has SOO many more crappy judges than policy does. I literally saw this one team's arguments go unanswered for the ENTIRE round, and they still lost. I don't think that there is anyone who likes civilian judges. I heard someone go up to the podium, and say that debators are not qualified to decide what is best. Then went off on an analytical that he made up. And he won. Civilian judge make the pf expierience not worth while. Observation 4: Policy helps you with real world policy making decisions. Policy makers actually have to consider all different types of impacts a certain action has on the world. And we do discuss benefits. plus, we have a wide verity of arguments that we can make. It is the most real world Observation 5: Policy has so many more arguments than PF. The most arguments I've seen in Pf was about nine arguments. Sure spreading is mostly considered stupid, but it helps alot of people in flowing, understanding inaudible arguments, and juggling many arguments. In Policy you have to deal with about 60 arguments per debate, and you have to juggle them all. Observation 6: In Pf you don't need warrants. I literally asked this one guy, why Robert Gates thinks that wikileaks is a threat. He said "I don't know" "Then why should we go with him, if he can't give a reason" "He doesn't need a reason, this is not a serious topic". One Kid said that he hadn't gone onto wikileaks, so I asked him how he knew anything about the topic, he just stood there and stared. He still lost, but the point is, without warrants, a debate is no more than just yelling at each other Observation 7: Cross-fire is worse than Cross-examination. In cross-x, it is your job to get as much information as you can from your opponent, this causes people to yell and ask quickly, in order to get the point across. Pf debaters treat it as an extension of their speech. They yell and don't really ask any questions, because they don't need to. The easiest way to win cross-fire is just to ask- What is your question?