Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

RL Debate

Pvt_Bowers
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:20:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Poked around the forums a little bit and I didn't really see any discussion about RL debates. The jargon page would have me believe at least the admins do debate in the real world. Do other people here debate off the interwebs?
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:24:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah there's a few of us, though some have graduated already. A sort list of people who've done it irl: Me, Thett, Bluesteel, Raisor, Mestari, PartamRuhem.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:25:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are a few members with experience in policy, LD, public forum, etc. Most members do not/ have not debated competitively. A good portion of the users are well beyond high school and college. The site is pretty diverse in terms of background of users.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 1:31:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does RL mean real life? Every month several (usually not prominent) members post that months LD topic for practice. But for the most part most of the members of this site are just argumentative in nature and haven't fostered that with formal debate.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 4:29:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:31:20 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Does RL mean real life? Every month several (usually not prominent) members post that months LD topic for practice. But for the most part most of the members of this site are just argumentative in nature and haven't fostered that with formal debate.

I don't agree with that, wanna argue about it ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:03:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:20:39 AM, Pvt_Bowers wrote:
Poked around the forums a little bit and I didn't really see any discussion about RL debates. The jargon page would have me believe at least the admins do debate in the real world. Do other people here debate off the interwebs?

Lol. Besides user mod, the admin here don't have any interest in debating at all.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 2:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 1:24:20 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Yeah there's a few of us, though some have graduated already. A sort list of people who've done it irl: Me, Thett, Bluesteel, Raisor, Mestari, PartamRuhem.

I do ESU Mace and BP debates - got to county region both in first year... then lost one closely then the other against the 3rd best team. But next time...next time!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 3:06:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 2:20:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/3/2012 1:24:20 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
Yeah there's a few of us, though some have graduated already. A sort list of people who've done it irl: Me, Thett, Bluesteel, Raisor, Mestari, PartamRuhem.

I do ESU Mace and BP debates - got to county region both in first year... then lost one closely then the other against the 3rd best team. But next time...next time!

Can you describe both of those types? Is BP "British Parliamentary?" The debate types in the States aren't the same as in the UK.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:50:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 7:47:44 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I used to do LD (Lincoln-Douglas) debates. I do not anymore, because the school that I go to now does not have a debate team.

lol sad... >.<!

Perhaps a debate club near you area that is private?
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

You guys are both wrong. LD is where it is at.
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:10:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

Oh, and I forgot my personal favorite:

Neg literally has NO ground left to stand on, what so ever. Judge walks out of the room immediately after the debate is over, having texted during the entire round. When I saw the ballot, she gave the win to Neg with literally NO RFD on the ballot.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
cameronl35
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

4...story of my life
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
-George Carlin (R.I.P.)

"MLK day is simply racism against whites."
-Lordknukle, only a nuance away from Stalin
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 9:15:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

I hate seeing arguments like this. Policy debaters say this crap about PDF all the time, and it's just annoying. If anything, Public Forum is the style of debate closest to the skills you'll actually need for public speaking. Policy is ridiculous (I've seen CRAZY videos of people speed reading and wonder at what point the idea of "speaking" was lost). I happen to really enjoy PFD, although LD interests me immensely as well. My school debate team only partakes if PFD though, so that's where I'm at.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 10:52:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 9:15:17 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

I hate seeing arguments like this. Policy debaters say this crap about PDF all the time, and it's just annoying. If anything, Public Forum is the style of debate closest to the skills you'll actually need for public speaking. Policy is ridiculous (I've seen CRAZY videos of people speed reading and wonder at what point the idea of "speaking" was lost). I happen to really enjoy PFD, although LD interests me immensely as well. My school debate team only partakes if PFD though, so that's where I'm at.

The thing about policy is it absolutely is not about being rhetorically persuasive. It is about arguing well. Comparing policy debate to public speaking in general is like comparing a published philosophy paper to a fictional short story. One values precision in argument while the other values style, aesthetics, etc. I understand the common critique of speeding but the bottom line is it allows for highly competitive and deep debates.

The lack of speed and time in PFD means the arguments are generally shallow with little analysis. You just dont get as much of the in depth analysis of warrants or the big picture analysis you see in policy. Theres also none of the unpredictability of policy, where the Aff might open with an argument about illegal detention but in the end the debate round hinges on whether or not executive orders are "Standard means" in passing legislation.

PFD just seems so sanitized and bland. Policy is the Wild West and PFD is a Nerf fight.
Pvt_Bowers
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 12:52:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you're thinking about doing PF, don't. lol.

Policy is the most valuable thing I see high school kids do. It forces them to research, read and argue -- even if they don't understand all of it.
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:53:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

OH GOD I know exactly what you are talking about. My examples are more annoying I would think...

1. Pro does not show crucial evidence to correlate their whole argument to the resolution. N. Korea is more threat then Iran, their argument being a war between S and N Korea and how we would need to be involved. They didn't show any treaty or ANYTHING between Us and S. Korea, so their whole argument was refuted. THe ballot stated that the judged KNEW there was a treaty, so i wasn't valid. LIKE WTF. Even moms can read the judge rules that says keep all personal knowledge out of judging.

2. Opponents get win, though we totally COMPLETELY wrecked them (they almost cried) because I was whispering to my opponent while they were talking, and the judge thought it was rude.

3. Judge felt bad for crying opponent, gave them win.....literally, I almost shat myself reading that one.

They definitly need better judges. It should be an occupation, paid for by the schools (at least the more serious ones) so to bring about a much more relevant reason for voting. That is the only thing about PF I hate.

Other than that, I feel like PF really takes the gloves off. Policy is pvssy sh!t compared to PF. It's literal arguing, with the ability to cut off your opponent a big factor. Most teams will respect one another and allow the other to speak. And most judges will realize when a team doesn't even let the other one talk. That happened to me once, and we won because of it. So it balances out that aspect. It's literally a crossfire though. You need to be ready for anything. It more fairly evaluates a debaters ability on their feet.
thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:53:13 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

OH GOD I know exactly what you are talking about. My examples are more annoying I would think...

1. Pro does not show crucial evidence to correlate their whole argument to the resolution. N. Korea is more threat then Iran, their argument being a war between S and N Korea and how we would need to be involved. They didn't show any treaty or ANYTHING between Us and S. Korea, so their whole argument was refuted. THe ballot stated that the judged KNEW there was a treaty, so i wasn't valid. LIKE WTF. Even moms can read the judge rules that says keep all personal knowledge out of judging.

2. Opponents get win, though we totally COMPLETELY wrecked them (they almost cried) because I was whispering to my opponent while they were talking, and the judge thought it was rude.

3. Judge felt bad for crying opponent, gave them win.....literally, I almost shat myself reading that one.

They definitly need better judges. It should be an occupation, paid for by the schools (at least the more serious ones) so to bring about a much more relevant reason for voting. That is the only thing about PF I hate.

Other than that, I feel like PF really takes the gloves off. Policy is pvssy sh!t compared to PF. It's literal arguing, with the ability to cut off your opponent a big factor. Most teams will respect one another and allow the other to speak. And most judges will realize when a team doesn't even let the other one talk. That happened to me once, and we won because of it. So it balances out that aspect. It's literally a crossfire though. You need to be ready for anything. It more fairly evaluates a debaters ability on their feet.

Those are incredibly annoying dude! I HATE being judge-f'd! And just so you know, if we had a real judge on the #1 we would have broken to quarters :(

Anyway I think all forms of debate are good (well the three major ones, I know nothing of congress or parliament). I love how in-depth Policy gets, and how you can have these amazing impacts. When I had an extinction impact in my PF case many of my opponents literally laughed, even though it was perfectly valid. Another major problem I have with PF is that it seems to encourage lame/weak arguments because you have lay judges. If I tried to explain something in-depth or whatever in many cases the judge simply would not be able to understand it, and I think thats a huge shame. Also PF gets ALOT of crappy topics, but also amazing ones which balance it out. That said, I agree with you on the crossfire bit--as much as I hate to draw from personal experience, I've seem Policy cross-ex's..they're pathetic. I've also watched a team of our who used to do policy (and did fairly decent)and switched to PF and they sucked because they didnt have a huge amount of evidence and didnt know how to give a speech without just reading off cards.

As for LD, I find it very fascinating.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 10:52:27 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 9:15:17 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

I hate seeing arguments like this. Policy debaters say this crap about PDF all the time, and it's just annoying. If anything, Public Forum is the style of debate closest to the skills you'll actually need for public speaking. Policy is ridiculous (I've seen CRAZY videos of people speed reading and wonder at what point the idea of "speaking" was lost). I happen to really enjoy PFD, although LD interests me immensely as well. My school debate team only partakes if PFD though, so that's where I'm at.

The thing about policy is it absolutely is not about being rhetorically persuasive. It is about arguing well. Comparing policy debate to public speaking in general is like comparing a published philosophy paper to a fictional short story. One values precision in argument while the other values style, aesthetics, etc. I understand the common critique of speeding but the bottom line is it allows for highly competitive and deep debates.

The lack of speed and time in PFD means the arguments are generally shallow with little analysis. You just dont get as much of the in depth analysis of warrants or the big picture analysis you see in policy. Theres also none of the unpredictability of policy, where the Aff might open with an argument about illegal detention but in the end the debate round hinges on whether or not executive orders are "Standard means" in passing legislation.

PFD just seems so sanitized and bland. Policy is the Wild West and PFD is a Nerf fight.

Wow. So you first start off by saying that Policy is not the same thing as PFD, nor do they have the same intentions, but contend Policy is somehow "superior" to PDF? Please.

As is stated above, all debate forms are interesting and fun in their own respects. I just hate how Policy somehow feels able to trash on other debates due to "lack of complexity or something". Like you said rhetorical persuasion is not as important in Policy, it IS in PDF. And it's also something more prevalent and important to learn than Policy, imo. I do agree Policy is important to learn for its respects, as you said, however.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:57:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:53:13 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

OH GOD I know exactly what you are talking about. My examples are more annoying I would think...

1. Pro does not show crucial evidence to correlate their whole argument to the resolution. N. Korea is more threat then Iran, their argument being a war between S and N Korea and how we would need to be involved. They didn't show any treaty or ANYTHING between Us and S. Korea, so their whole argument was refuted. THe ballot stated that the judged KNEW there was a treaty, so i wasn't valid. LIKE WTF. Even moms can read the judge rules that says keep all personal knowledge out of judging.

2. Opponents get win, though we totally COMPLETELY wrecked them (they almost cried) because I was whispering to my opponent while they were talking, and the judge thought it was rude.

3. Judge felt bad for crying opponent, gave them win.....literally, I almost shat myself reading that one.

They definitly need better judges. It should be an occupation, paid for by the schools (at least the more serious ones) so to bring about a much more relevant reason for voting. That is the only thing about PF I hate.

Other than that, I feel like PF really takes the gloves off. Policy is pvssy sh!t compared to PF. It's literal arguing, with the ability to cut off your opponent a big factor. Most teams will respect one another and allow the other to speak. And most judges will realize when a team doesn't even let the other one talk. That happened to me once, and we won because of it. So it balances out that aspect. It's literally a crossfire though. You need to be ready for anything. It more fairly evaluates a debaters ability on their feet.

PFD Crossfire is brutal. You have to be on top of it, and at the same time you have to appear nice or the judge will slaughter you. Frickin' judges. As is already stated, judges can really be horrible at their jobs.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 5:58:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 5:03:17 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:53:13 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 8:56:49 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 7:51:07 PM, vmpire321 wrote:
At 1/3/2012 5:26:14 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 1/3/2012 4:47:46 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:33:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'm a Policy debater. But I'm thinking about doing PF next year.

You should, it's the best. I hate LD debates, never was good at them. I feel that Public Forum really gives the debater a more adequate challenge. You can be the best debater, but without the proper research your case will be nothing.

PF is policy with its balls cut off. I had to judge PF once and it was soooo boring. They run like two arguments per round and you just hear the same stuff repeated over the course of a tournament. Four minutes is just not enough time to develop a case.

Plus the crossfire portion can get super sloppy since it is shared time. A lot of teams just plow through talking over opponents and using it as a platform to build on their speeches. Its a lot harder to do this in policy where the cross-ex "belongs" to one team and they can assert their right to direct the exchange.

Plus crossfire is a mess

Agreed... but PF is still awesome. :)

The biggest problem I have with Public Forum is its God-awful judge pool. I'm sure Rasior was a good judge, but some of the stupidity is just astounding.

Examples: 1. Neg says whoever is more democratic wins. Concedes they're less democratic. Judge votes Neg.
2. Ex-PF judge who apparently hates policy and gave my a LPW when we obviously killed because I used the word "solvency".
3. Aff has no ground at the end of the debate. Judge says she doesnt believe in Negs arguments. Votes aff.
4. Judge attacks Affs argument and votes Neg.
5. Judges think Negs arguments are offensive, go Aff by default even though a whole contention stood unrefuted

and 6. Judge votes Neg on income inequality topic and starts talking about the Electoral College (I mean, we still won and deserved the win, but what a ridiculous critique)

OH GOD I know exactly what you are talking about. My examples are more annoying I would think...

1. Pro does not show crucial evidence to correlate their whole argument to the resolution. N. Korea is more threat then Iran, their argument being a war between S and N Korea and how we would need to be involved. They didn't show any treaty or ANYTHING between Us and S. Korea, so their whole argument was refuted. THe ballot stated that the judged KNEW there was a treaty, so i wasn't valid. LIKE WTF. Even moms can read the judge rules that says keep all personal knowledge out of judging.

2. Opponents get win, though we totally COMPLETELY wrecked them (they almost cried) because I was whispering to my opponent while they were talking, and the judge thought it was rude.

3. Judge felt bad for crying opponent, gave them win.....literally, I almost shat myself reading that one.

They definitly need better judges. It should be an occupation, paid for by the schools (at least the more serious ones) so to bring about a much more relevant reason for voting. That is the only thing about PF I hate.

Other than that, I feel like PF really takes the gloves off. Policy is pvssy sh!t compared to PF. It's literal arguing, with the ability to cut off your opponent a big factor. Most teams will respect one another and allow the other to speak. And most judges will realize when a team doesn't even let the other one talk. That happened to me once, and we won because of it. So it balances out that aspect. It's literally a crossfire though. You need to be ready for anything. It more fairly evaluates a debaters ability on their feet.


Those are incredibly annoying dude! I HATE being judge-f'd! And just so you know, if we had a real judge on the #1 we would have broken to quarters :(


Anyway I think all forms of debate are good (well the three major ones, I know nothing of congress or parliament). I love how in-depth Policy gets, and how you can have these amazing impacts. When I had an extinction impact in my PF case many of my opponents literally laughed, even though it was perfectly valid. Another major problem I have with PF is that it seems to encourage lame/weak arguments because you have lay judges. If I tried to explain something in-depth or whatever in many cases the judge simply would not be able to understand it, and I think thats a huge shame. Also PF gets ALOT of crappy topics, but also amazing ones which balance it out. That said, I agree with you on the crossfire bit--as much as I hate to draw from personal experience, I've seem Policy cross-ex's..they're pathetic. I've also watched a team of our who used to do policy (and did fairly decent)and switched to PF and they sucked because they didnt have a huge amount of evidence and didnt know how to give a speech without just reading off cards.

As for LD, I find it very fascinating.

Yeah I really like LD to be honest.

My policy partner was definitely one of those people who just read cards. He could read faster though, so he was always 1st and I was 2nd. Id just package the shells for him and sometimes even had to write out analytics mid-round (what a waste of prep time). Good policy debaters know their shiit though.

Same with cross-ex. Good debaters make pointed questions designed to expose weaknesses in warrants or contradictions in strategy but there are a lot of policy debaters who just dont have a clue what to do with the cross-ex.

As for terrible judges, I once lost a round where we went all-in on topicality (because Aff was terrible and barely responded to it). On the ballot "Neg shouldnt have spent their last speech just talking about definitions. Topicality doesnt make sense to me." WHY ARE YOU JUDGING IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND A STOCK ISSUE.

That was like 6 years ago though so Im mostly over it.