-->
@Alec
Substantial additional gun controls, prohibitions on some ownership, buybacks, and attempt to substantially reduce the number of weapons legally owned, and increase the legal requirements and burden required to own and sell them.
Substantial additional gun controls
46 days later
My new position on abortion that ought to be implemented nationwide. Subject to change:
I would enjoy debating you, but it would be too time consuming. I have an AP Chem test coming up and I have to study for it. I could debate you after May 9th.
Border wall. You can start by not forfeiting Round 1.I'm not backing down. What do you want to debate about?
I think that is fair because we both would be arguing the philosophical grounds and if you want to argue with data as well.
Original"I support the death penalty as punishment in at least one real or hypothetical or real instance. My opponent must be against the death penalty for all conceivable crimes. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."New one"I support the death penalty. My opponent must be against the death penalty. No new arguments in the final round, but arguments in all other rounds are okay. The BoP is shared."
What's the difference? I sense a trap.
No because then I am forced to use those as the talking points for my side instead it can be more general like the one I proposed so that I can choose to defend my position in various of ways.So if I say, "I want the death penalty for murder and treason" and you have to prove that both of these are a bad idea, would that be a compromise.
Is this a good description?
I would like it to be more general which doesn't mean you can't use those arguments.
How about we agree here or in the debate itself that I don't straw-man you? That way I get the general description and you get me not straw-manning you. Can you also make it 10,000 characters I would be kind of annoyed if run out of characters. Don't think I will but less chance if it was 10,000.I think you would be strawmanizing me if I were to defend the death penalty for general crimes. I hope I'm not a straw man. I don't want to have to argue the death penalty for misdemeanors.
Alright fine. Am I allowed to rebut in the 1st Round or do I have to wait until the 2nd?I can make it 10,000 characters, but I like my new description better.