Talk:Public forum debate

message: Please, don't put the results of tournaments - even nationals - up on this page. There are dedicated websites for that. Randomtask (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tournament Winners 

message: can you have more than one argument in your final focus? --Herzog 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help fast please 

message: most information is good but it needs sites.  also whether rebutal should be included in the second constructive is region specific BeckBoy Ak 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: The information is good enough, though I disagree somewhat with the controversy of it being more about speaker tone than research. In my personal experience, both the judge and the opposing team will hit you hard for a lack of hard-evidence (backed up by sources), but I won't disagree that good speaking tone and control over enunciation. Wish us luck, we're the top ranked Novice (we're Freshmen) team, and we're on our way to nationals! 
                                                                69.72.83.171 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research vs. Speaking 

message: I think that per Policy Debate, we might want to include strategies, resources, etc. on this page. Any thoughts? --Lakerdonald 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  strats 

message: We are born and live anywhere between 30 and 90 years. The goverment in this country trys to make us hate each other so they can control us. If we would stand together as ONE we could take back control of OUR country. Yes this is our country and we let these rich jackasses tell us what we can and cant do. Well I say to hell with them i will do what I want and everyone else should to.If we stand together we can accomplish anything and everything we want. so Please stand with me and lets take our country back                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       sincerely 
Arthur S.bolin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.197.45 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  we dont have to take it no more 

message: Is it wise to compare this to a now defunct television program? 97.126.56.74 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public forum debate can be compared to a nationally-televised debate, such as Crossfire  

message: Why was this done, and should it be restored?Kevince59 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics section blanked 

message: PF judges at Yale 2015 were specifically instructed by the tab director to ignore the pdf cited in the previous version of this page, and give 2 minutes per team, not 4.  (Whether it was simply a mistake in the invite or the intention was 4 minutes total in the round i.e. 2 per side, is unclear.)  There was similar confusion at Penn this year - regardless of anything written, the in-person judge instruction was 2 minutes per side.  I don't know of any tournaments that actually give 4 minutes per side but perhaps there are some.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.181.186 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 minutes for prep? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Public forum debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519175935/http://debateclash.com/2015/05/public-forum-debate-format/ to http://debateclash.com/2015/05/public-forum-debate-format/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ping ; it seems to me as well as removing the list of previous resolutions, we should trim the rest of the article radically. Practically none of it appears in the sources given and much of it is not suitable for inclusion (including all the stuff about how marvellous it is). What do you think? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ; I totally agree with you. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. There's not much left since it turns out the article actually only has one cite. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical cuts 

message: I regret that for personal reasons I was largely unable to edit (at all) when the dispute resolution process on this article started. However, on reviewing it, I find  wrote that "as long as you stick strictly to the information contained in the citations, the detail is not excessive". I disagree, but unless some other editors also feel this is excessive detail at a later date, I think it is incumbent on me to accept RobbieM13's suggestion and leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution