ld opponent
- By - i6v6a6n
Question
- By - absolutechad233
to dress the police horses in ghost costumes
When you come across a feel-good thing.
- By - integrate-space_xyz
Arizona Man Brutalized During Arrest After Firing At Officers
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.
Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.
Gives 100 Reddit Coins and a week of r/lounge access and ad-free browsing.
Thank you stranger. Shows the award.
When you come across a feel-good thing.
A glowing commendation for all to see
Staring into the abyss and it's staring right back
- By - kaosmode
disqualified
Fr? Who tf has photocopies of every card
Yeah that’s fair. All of these arguments share a similar premise for why they’re relevant to the debate. I think the most commonly misunderstood concept in debate is how those arguments are relevant and what the further implications of that are.
How can you perm a k aff?
Leaking classified info is the only good one IMO
Haven’t competed yet on this topic but how are those cps claiming competivity
Term sup court exist abolish no exist no perm disempower they will say perm abusive term not disempowering the court
Why not perm do the aff then the cp? Or you could say 0 year term limit if you haven’t specified lol. And can you explain the perm abusive
I know there can be some... shall we say stongly differing perspectives on LD debate and what should or should not be allowed. If you want my 2-cents, this is not the style LD debaters should go for. Since the debate is about values, we are not asking the 2 debaters to create plans of action, only evaluate the value/ethics of a given idea or course of action- in this case, giving term limits. As such, proposing a plan is actually outside the scope of the resolution.
The only burden of the negative should be to disprove the resolution. So long as an alternative proposal disproves the desirability of the resolution under a given framework then that counter proposal provides a reason to negate given the opportunity cost.
I'd say 1 and 3
Funny enough it’s 2 and 3
Prog or trad LD? In other words, did your LD have plans, theory and stuff or did it have values and value criteria?
I’ve done both but my local circuit is mostly trad
Retired debate coach from a traditional circuit here.
The question of whether something should be done always relies on the evaluations on the merits of term limits. The resolution doesn’t ask would policy makers pass term limits or even if policy makers can term limit them. It asks whether they ought to be term limited
Yeah the concept that we assume the resolution is passed to evaluate its impacts is called fiat. There’s very good arguments to be made on the mar/apr topic that the use of the word ought implies we are deciding whether or not the policy is a good idea not whether it will pass or not. The unpopularity of the resolution is another argument but has to be made in context to the assumption that the resolution will be done.
Disclosure theory is a blight upon debate, very few judges will vote on Disclosure theory unless there is extreme circumstances that warrant it. Legitimately all of it’s points fall flat with a little bit of knowledge. The only exception to this are in certain kritiks where the performance is making debate a discussion instead and not disclosing that to start with
As someone at a small school without a coach I really can’t see why you think disclosure doesn’t have benefits. It seems to me that the wiki can be incredibly helpful for learning debate and improving arguements.
At least on my local circuit you can ask whatever you want. Pretty common to ask about paradigms before the rounds. I would definitely ask how they weigh the round if their paradigm isn’t clear.
When writing a policy add-on for an LD (Lincoln Douglas) debate, it is important to follow a clear and logical structure in order to present your ideas effectively. Here is a general outline of how you might structure a policy add-on for an LD debate:
What do you mean by a policy add-on? I’ve never heard that term used before sorry.
A policy add-on is a term used in policy debate, which is a type of competitive debate in which teams of two argue for and against a specific resolution or policy proposal. A policy add-on is an additional argument or point that a debater introduces into the debate in order to strengthen their position or to counter an argument made by the opposition. Policy add-ons are typically introduced late in the debate, after the initial arguments have been presented, and are used to provide additional evidence or support for the debater's position.
Is this a bot lmao I can’t imagine a person writing like this
This reads like it’s ai generated lol
Maybe it’s my school or something in the water but in my experience these devolve into shouting matches where the troll kids think it’s their time to shine. The serious topics allow students to come up with real world clever arguments and ideas and it seems to be a much more rewarding experience for them.
There’s a good middle ground in serious yet odd topics for example I did “Politicians should be drug tested” which is both a serious topic and also kinda wierd.
I think your best argument for the neg would be that if we tax religious organizations, that would also require that they are allowed to participate in politics (endorsing candidates, lobbying, donating to campaigns and super PACs, etc). From here you would focus on why this is bad, especially given the unique coercive powers religious organizations have in our lives (imagine the threat of excommunication for not voting for a specific candidate).
Why would it require that they could participate in politics?
Politics (like everything) requires experience and their will be a lot of downsides to only having inexperienced Congress people. One I’ve heard is that new congresspeople are more susceptible to lobbying.
THEY WANTED TO USE A HUMAN SUBJECT???????
Ks in pf are already a horrible idea and running meme cases is kinda disrespectful but here a post that has a great file for this kinda thing:
I mean, a k won toc not to long ago, puff is changiing
TOC is very different from most local circuits. If you have a very prog local circuit then go ahead but idk why you care if you’re just trolling.
Yeah pretty sure it's a kkk thing ... I believe Americans see anything wearing white as kkk... I didn't realize this also included working animals but it's honestly hard to be surprised with what the woke can become offended by...
If your not American why are you commenting on a post about American police and American history to tell us that American culture is wrong for caring about American problems?
[удалено]
Then he should be in jail for attempted murder instead of being beaten on the floor without trial. All your doing is giving these pos ways to gain sympathy and avoid real consequences for their actions.
Climate change
Basically, it was somehow actually made slightly better by becoming popular, a rare thing indeed.
Not better, just a different more mainstream kind of stupidity
As always, depends on the judge. I had a judge (who was somehow a coach at a school) vote me down for running topicality, which she thought was bad. At least in my circuit, there are still a lot of stock judges who won’t listen to anything outside a pretty strict area of debate.
How does one vote against topicality? How could you even have debate without at least basic topicality arguments?
There are a lot of bad judges out there. In fact, in most places throughout the country, they are the norm.
Yeah that seems more consistent with judges in my circuit but I do LD so 99% of judges haven’t even heard the word topicality before. I feel that tho I hate when experienced judges have like personal grudges with specific arguments
It is first in lots of things
What things? Obesity? Homicide rate? Or maybe number of the letter S in the states name.