I saw some other definitions about LD and policy, and they were old, so I made this so a newer debater can understand. I will assume you understand the rules and various jargon used obsessively throughout most of the debate community. Public forum, compared to other debate events, while not necessarily the best, should still be highly considered. Looking at other debate forms such at LD, policy, and congress, PF is the most fun. PF is like the "Goldilocks" event. LD is too boring (who would want to judge two roman-nosed high schoolers in suits talking about the values in life for and hour), policy requires too much time researching random and stupid arguments (penguins lead to nuclear war) or perfecting speaking speed, and congress is vague, lazy, difficult to become good at, and rounds are loud and you barely get to speak. Public forum also looks good on applications, teaches you to debate lay a lot better (which definitely helps you a lot more in later parts of your life), and is probably the most "easiest to learn, hardest to master" type of debate. Give it a try.
"I'll never quit public forum. Screw policy."
"Ugh...this congress round will never end."
"Who tf cares about principles and values in life?"
"Ugh...this congress round will never end."
"Who tf cares about principles and values in life?"
by purgeTheUrgeToSplurge December 7, 2020
Public forum debate consists of two teams of two debaters each. It is a fight to the death in which debaters are readied with their sharp tongues and quick wits, ready to engage in a verbal gladiator match. While Policy debaters laugh at Public Forum, a truly godly Public Forum debater can still anal anyone. Most PF debaters are douchebags, and the top debaters who recieve TOC bids on a daily basis are cocky, self-righteous dicks.
While all this is happening, there is a judge presiding over the match and deciding who the winner is. Once the judge sees the who should win the debate, their nefarious minds twist evilly and they then turn the verdict around and screw over the team that should win. Their bias shines proudly as they watch the team that should have won walk away with glum faces and sore asses.
While all this is happening, there is a judge presiding over the match and deciding who the winner is. Once the judge sees the who should win the debate, their nefarious minds twist evilly and they then turn the verdict around and screw over the team that should win. Their bias shines proudly as they watch the team that should have won walk away with glum faces and sore asses.
I watched as the Public Forum debate went down.
Two teams were at it hard, fast, long, and furious. They danced around with fancy terminology and gained pleasure from turning another team's blocks.
The judge felt bad for the team that lost so she basically ran a sympathy kritik and gave them the win instead.
Two teams were at it hard, fast, long, and furious. They danced around with fancy terminology and gained pleasure from turning another team's blocks.
The judge felt bad for the team that lost so she basically ran a sympathy kritik and gave them the win instead.
by masterdebater4lyfe February 22, 2015
(1) n. To throw out something on a regular basis at the end of every month, typically associated with the tossing out of evidence for Public Forum Debate
(2) n. The dance move of stepping to the side and throwing one arm (typically the right) up in the air as if throwing out evidence for Public Forum Debate at the end of every month
(3) v.To preform the public forum shuffle
(2) n. The dance move of stepping to the side and throwing one arm (typically the right) up in the air as if throwing out evidence for Public Forum Debate at the end of every month
(3) v.To preform the public forum shuffle
by ajisthegreatest January 21, 2011
by ProfessorPiggos November 18, 2022