Public Forum debate was created by CNN host Ted Turner in 2002 after he watched a round of policy and couldn’t fathom why someone would want to talk so fast. The goal of PF, in its inception, was to create a type of debate more accessible and entertaining to the layperson. But like the history of every single debate event, they all tend to revert back into policy debate over time. The main way PF differs, though, is that it has remained majority policy-oriented even after spreading and delivery styles were borrowed from LD and Policy.

It seems, though, that PF is finally changing. Nueva AG just won TOC and brought the K to finals at Emory, Kentucky, Bronx Science, and Ivy Street. Even though it’s winning, people still hate K and theory teams in PF. As a progressive PF debater who’s learned everything he knows from policy kids, I’m here to make a case for it.

K Debate

The main argument I hear against the K in PF, and what Strake SM won on in Emory Finals, is that we must keep the “public” in “public forum”. To understand how this argument functions, we must understand debate as a unique activity. Yes, the goal behind the creation of PF debate was to introduce a format where anyone can get pulled off the street and adjudicate a round, but that’s not what happens. Circuit PF is an insular space where the judge pool is mostly the same at every tournament, and it’s rare for a team to make it to elims that isn’t at least spreading. In these situations, is it necessary to keep arguments surface-level and lay friendly? I don’t think so. The point of a competition is to do what wins, and when the box you’re told to fit in expands, it’s normal to push against the bounds of said box. If the person judging you allows for multiple paths to their ballot, why stay on the path most traveled?

Second, there’s arguments surrounding time. The reason why people say the K works in LD and CX, but not in PF is because constructives last twice as long, allowing people to read more complex arguments. However, TOC directly disproves this, and shows how reading a K in PF can be even more beneficial. The K from Nueva AG’s read in Emory finals is a testament to the ability of high-level K debaters to read an extremely complex argument at a conversational pace and still have it function under scrutiny. The 4-minute constructive forces concision which allows for more ingenious argumentation because complicated concepts must be reduced to just the essence of their meaning.

Finally, there’s education. I’ve heard the argument many times that topic education is necessary and useful for our daily lives. The problem with this argument is that it only works if quote, unquote “topical” education is rarer than kritikal education, which is obviously false. We learn about policy in every humanities class, and most of us can put together a case with cards from a backfile in minutes. Just link it to recession, hegemony, war, and all those cause extinction. There’s much more education in writing links for a K. There’s so much interesting theory and studies that connect every topic to so many niche critiques. Little Rock LW’s “Zombuddha” K (in policy) is illustrative of how unique kritikal theory can get, and how it can link to topics that seem completely unrelated. It uses representations of zombies in horror movies to show how the west sees Asian life. It’s niche literature–the kind of stuff that you’ve never thought of before and no teacher has ever taught you–that I think best creates kritikal education. Personally, after ~2.5 years of extremely topical debate, I stopped feeling like I was learning anything and wanted to do something new. That’s what led me towards the K, and I hope I’ve made you interested in it too.

Theory

Not as contentious, but still argued over, is theory. The number of times one of my theory shells in a round has been answered by “we haven’t been taught how to respond to theory” or “theory doesn’t belong in public forum” is astounding. Theory is a prerequisite for a fair and educational debate space because it ensures that abusive norms are punished. The reason I started disclosing last year is because I lost to disclosure theory. The reason I use author qualifications is because I lost to that shell. The biggest incentive for someone to help the debate space is to give them the ballot for it. Without theory, there’s no way to check back against abuse. Not disclosing, not citing cards correctly, misgendering people, etc. would be accepted if you couldn’t lose for it.

The main argument against theory debate I’ve heard (besides that it’s called public forum) is that it opens a “pandora’s box” of random tricky arguments. To this, there’s only one answer: get good. If you think a shell is stupid or unwarranted, then beat it. There’s no reason you need to make a case for that type of argument to never be run again. All the LD and CX debaters I know (that don’t run tricks) all have the same opinion on those arguments–if it’s a bad argument just respond to it. 

Conclusion

Overall, progressive debate is a way to open the world of competitive argumentation to a more diverse set of views and opinions, as well as a way of checking back against harmful behavior. Kritikal debate energizes those bored with arguing the same old link chains and theory allows teams to chill abusive norms as well as reinforce good ones. 

If you really hate these arguments that much, just beat them. It’s not that hard.