Pf Evidence

[joshsmithld 7]

What is the best brief for PF?

 

Preferably for a mix of progressive and more traditional evidence because that is what my schools tournament schedule is like.

 

*I take the 21 views and the 0 responses to mean there is absolutely no good PF evidence. What a surprise.

[TejaVepa 260]

I take the 21 views and the 0 responses to mean there is absolutely no good PF evidence. What a surprise.

 

 

 

Correct.

[rteehas 412]

Evidence? Silly debater, PFers don't use evidence.

[Penquin 4]

PF is all about speaking pretty.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

Every PF brief I've seen in the last five years relies heavily on readily-available information from major news organizations, think tanks, easily-googlable journals, and "me". Buying PF evidence may be a good way to save time and avoid getting research experience, but you're not going to find any hidden bombshells that will totally pwn the other team.

[catherinerr 3]

I've used Big Sky, Planet Debate, Finalist Files, etc. but I like Champion Briefs the best. Their topic analyses are really good and the blocks are in an easy to use format.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

I've used Big Sky, Planet Debate, Finalist Files, etc. but I like Champion Briefs the best. Their topic analyses are really good and the blocks are in an easy to use format.

I'd be much more inclined to believe this was a genuine user if it wasn't the 5th or 6th account created in recent days to make its first post on Cross-x a short endorsement of Champion Briefs. It's a reasonable assumption that this marketing blitz is the CB people's work. So ... take that for what it's worth. The above is the best review that the (likely) authors can give their own product.

 

Also, I skimmed the free brief they posted (Nats 2012). It wasn't horrible, but it also doesn't contain any non-obvious evidence or ideas. Also, many of the arguments are weak, rely on ad homeniem attack, lack significance, or are non-topical. As it stands right now, the only teams that would buy Champion Briefs are those who are too lazy to do real prep work. Those teams will lose, badly, to teams that do put in the pre-round work.

 

Champion Briefs kids, rather than spamming this site with ineffective ads, spend this off-season improving your product. Do research on your competitors and the demands of the market. Even if you can get some novices to buy your product a few times, if they don't see results, or gain skills that surpass the quality of the brief, they won't buy anymore. Organize your content better so it is easier to customize for in-round use, work on avoiding redundancy or contradiction in your topic analyses, and flex your research muscles so that you include more specialty sources (Lexis, academic journals, books, and other things that your customers can't easily get by running the same Google search you did), and make sure to proofread and eliminate sloppy mistakes (e.g. it's not "Lexis Nexus").

 

For the next few weeks, unless the Admins tell me otherwise, I'm going to delete any Champions Brief promotional posts in my forums by accounts with less than 10 posts and created after 15 June 2012 unless it's actually by one of the Briefs' authors.

[ChampionBriefs 13]

@Dr.FoxOnSocks:

 

The posts from the last few days were not directly from our staff but were from friends of staff members who wanted to help us out. I was just shown your response and it is actually the best piece of advice that we could have gotten. Our goal is to focus more on what you were talking about (a better, more in-depth, and more useful brief) and we are working on how we will go about doing that. We don't want to appeal only to novices who don't want to do work, which is why we're going to follow your advice. I'd like to apologize for the "spamming" that my colleague brought to this forum and thank you for your advice. If you (or anyone else) has any other input about what you want out of a brief, feel free to email it to Suggestions@championbriefs.com or just post it on the forums on championbriefs.com.