<p>Nah, I didn’t end up being able to see the final round (we mixed up the times =/.) Both teams at national finals were undoubtedly really, really good though. St. Andrew’s (I think Aditya posted in this thread earlier, xD) was first seed at Emory this year, I think, and my PF teammates give them ‘respect’ lol. And then Durham has won essentially every major tournament in the country. </p>
<p>The reason this disintegrates into yelling matches so quickly is because the debate falls into definition/evidence debates almost instantaneously. That kind of stuff almost never has a resolution; there’s evidence supporting both sides of almost every issue. At quarters/semis at Wake this year, the other team at one point yelled “ALL THEY’RE USING IS LOGIC. WE’RE GIVING YOU HARD EVIDENCE.” The judge, in the oral critique, was like “You guys epitomize all that is wrong with PFD,” and I have to agree.</p>
<p>Lol. /hating on policy style PF</p>
<p>This is why I do extemp =)</p>
<p>aww Meredith is a sweetie. I miss her. </p>
<p>sorry about how random that was haha</p>
<p>haha extemp ftw!! </p>
<p>i miss debate so much! i only start debating in the second semester because of conflicts with my other major ecs, so i havent been at a tournament since nats 
victory briefs or a league ie will be my first one of the year.</p>
<p>I did PF at Nats and it really has become policy-lite(no offense to any policy kids but i don’t think policy is real debate-it’s like speed talking. It’s unintelligible) Compared to Las Vegas Nats, I felt very disappointed</p>
<p>However, final rounds of everything were fantastic!!! PF was good and even Policy was enjoyable(very funny and kinda spiteful),but the speech events really moved me. The duo “because I wanted to say” made me bawl and “anna and august” was hilarious</p>
<p>i didnt get to see interp finals because they were during the times i was competing </p>
<p>and, although i was staying at the tournament hotel, i forgot that final rounds were on the tvs…</p>
<p>interp rounds were just incredible
every single one of them was spot on</p>
<p>@MissRoark: This is irrelevant to this discussion, but have you read the Fountainhead?</p>
<p>PF in North Carolina is insane…Durham is beasting this year. And I actually think Caleb Frye (Meredith Potter’s partner) was the smarter of the two, but in a passive way. I just hate how PF is becoming so stats based. I don’t care who can read more stats faster in their constructives…if my logic wins, I win that point (arg!). And crossfire has become “Let me reread you this stat and not let you talk” time.</p>
<p>Does anyone like the new final focus time limit? I can’t decide…on the one hand, it lends itself to more coherent FF, but it also just seems like another summary.</p>
<p>@darkblademaster</p>
<p>Fellow Rand fan? :D</p>
<p>Mm. The new Final Focus didn’t change much, in my opinion. It’ll be the same old impact, ‘this is why we won’ speech, but just … longer? It’s probably to keep the event more accessible for teams that can’t yet word economize/prioritize arguments?</p>
<p>@NC PFD kid. PM me your school haha. I may have hit you sometime, lol.</p>
<p>I just really liked the old FF. I’m second speaker, and I felt so much more beastly when I really made my one point in that minute. But it definitely makes things more coherent.</p>
<p>personally, i like having five or more minutes to wrap things up, so it was really hard to adjust going from other debates to pf for a couple tournaments.
one minute DEFINITELY makes a difference though. thats like three extra voters!</p>
<p>It does make a difference, but it also keeps the debate open to several voting issues all the way through. I liked the way one minute forced you to focus on a point or two (though of course there are those obnoxious teams who would spread and review like five voting issues in the one minute) and make it more of a thematic argument versus “my card beats your card nahnahnahnahnahnah,” lol.</p>
<p>I liked the one min
i’m a second speaker and my FF were never about individual points, but just a very pretty"this is what this debate comes down to"</p>
<p>^Exactly. Though I guess PF is becoming more stats based…meh. Combining argumentation with a few select stats is so much better.</p>
<p>^^I finaled at PHSSL states using very little stats and more analysis which is what my judges LIKED…PF is meant to be judged by a lay person, and that’s who we had judge our states…they didn’t appreciate being bamboozled by stats…they liked oration</p>
<p>@darkblademaster: of course :D</p>
<p>@rocket6louise: why are speed talking and well-reasoned, cogent argumentation mutually exclusive? and you watched the final round at nats this year–how was that “not real debate?”</p>
<p>i thought final rounds were good, but i really don’t like policy other than that. The focus is too much on quantity of information than quality…It is not truly communicative as the average person would not understand a round of it</p>
<p>your second criticism is fair. it’s definitely one of the drawbacks of the activity on the national circuit. at tournaments like NFL Nationals, though, debaters have to adapt to judges without policy experience. good debaters do a beautiful job. overall, though, i value the activity not for its power as a communicative tool but its ability to teach me to think strategically. its intensely academic focus does trade-off with focus on oration, but to me, it’s worth it. </p>
<p>your first criticism is not true of good policy debate. sure, there are bad debates, but i’m sure there are equally bad debates in other activities. good policy debaters have to process information extremely quickly and provide substantive analysis. those who focus on reading more pieces of evidence than the other team, without making smart, strategic arguments, are ridiculed.</p>