If the resolution was Capitalism is exploitative, unsustainable, and unscientific, then pro would probably have won the debate. However, the resolution is whether or not Capitalism is **obsolete,** a point that con argues well. Con shows that capitalism is still in use and thus is not obsolete. The definition of obsolete, as con defined:
"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."
The general rule in debating is that you should define all your terms prior to the start of the debate. This is the mistake pro made in this debate (and in the other debates I've seen from him).
Pro forfeited the last round so conduct to con and this means pro essentially dropped all of con's arguments.
Ah didn’t know that. In reality I think the instigator should always be “pro.” Though perhaps he should have worded it in a negative form, but that too wouldn’t make too much sense. Anyway I think I’ll take this debate
Think we should just make this a normal debate where pro waived the first round and I’ll waive the last round to make the rounds even?
Ok is there a rule on who goes first or maximum number of questions? I’m pretty sure negative goes first
Is this when we do cross examination?
Other cases of interest:
Roe v. Wade
obergefell vs hodges
I'm in favor of both cases. Also I'd be interested in debating repeal of the second amendment
Sure! I love constitutional law and legal debates. Perhaps we could do one on Cotizens United?
This is one of my favorite debates of all time. Thank you for debating this with me! I've learned quite a lot from this debate!
If you want to make this just a regular debate where I went first and I’ll waive the last round I’ll be fine with that
RFD for arguments
If the resolution was Capitalism is exploitative, unsustainable, and unscientific, then pro would probably have won the debate. However, the resolution is whether or not Capitalism is **obsolete,** a point that con argues well. Con shows that capitalism is still in use and thus is not obsolete. The definition of obsolete, as con defined:
"Not in use any more, having been replaced by something newer and better or more fashionable."
The general rule in debating is that you should define all your terms prior to the start of the debate. This is the mistake pro made in this debate (and in the other debates I've seen from him).
Pro forfeited the last round so conduct to con and this means pro essentially dropped all of con's arguments.
Sounds good! I never really done CX before
Looks good to me
Thank you! Check out our other debate
Ah didn’t know that. In reality I think the instigator should always be “pro.” Though perhaps he should have worded it in a negative form, but that too wouldn’t make too much sense. Anyway I think I’ll take this debate
If you’re against the resolution, then you should be con. I’ll challenge you to this topic as pro
I’m confused
This is intended to be an LD debate. I will be arguing the Negative.
Are you arguing that the US should or should not require background checks? If you’re arguing against, I’ll take this debate.
Thank you!
Define what "lyrically advanced" means and what criteria is used to find which genre has more lyrical advancement.
Hey since con was banned challenge me to this debate
This is an excellent debate so far. PM me when this is over so I can vote.