DeprecatoryLogistician

Our round is finished.

Yeah, I honestly agree with you. My mind just instantly jumped to a world where the feature is constantly used for obscenity and gore, but I should probably be less pessimistic. 

Yeah, that seems like a reason to keep the forum.

Then why do you use the forum?

They are useful to the forum side of the site at least, and besides that the forum is necessary for the purposes of debates as well. For example the tournament was organized on the forum.

Maybe, but I feel like people who don't debate would just leave.

yeah, thats true

That wouldn't be abused at all...

This one might be a little more time consuming to implement, but a better text editor with more options for different styles of text (font, size,  color, etc.) could make organization of rounds much clearer.

Additionally, I think the max character count for RFDs should be raised.

I don't know, yours seems a lot tougher to me. A lot of people have died from covid, and passing a pandemic off as a good thing seems pretty hard. I am excited to see what you argue though. 

This seems extreme if someone just ffs in the last round. I think 2 ffs might be better, and at that point they have probably lost the debate anyways.

So... Tejretics is sick with Covid and can't continue in the tournament. If every one else is finished we should be able to move on to the next round. 

Whether it is constitutional or not the decision is insane. It is based on the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment. Privacy and abortion have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, there is no right to privacy in the 14th Amendment which any sane person can see by simply reading it. 

On the thirteenth amendment, I don't think that is justification either. Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Sec. 2 is just enforcement, and has nothing to do with the actual issue. This is talking specifically about slavery, and it is clear that in no way is the mother a slave to a child in her stomach. She has complete autonomy still, and is not being forced to work for anything. Also, in our current system the child is treated as her property, so it is really the other way around. If there is any argument, it is that minors are closer to slaves than mothers.

Im down

There is no such thing as a right-winger that tears down a system.The right wing is inherently conservative, and the only reason that people get confused about this is becasue in America conservatives are ussually trying to conserve liberty or a percieved sense of liberty. This may be libertarianism, but it is a conservative form of libertarianism. Any "right-winger" who seeks liberty through the destruction of the system is by defenition on the left wing, but they are just less authoritarian than the current left wingers which makes it seem like they don't fit into that group.

A progresive that doesnt agree with me? This has never happend before. 

Yeah its more effective in odd months, but in the even months it changes back to being less effective. That is why you need your booster every two months. Get the vaccine in January, get inffected in Febuary for immunity, then get the vaccine again in March, and then get infected with a new variant in April and so on, or at least thats what I imagine the logic at the CDC is. 

This is the problem with Leftism. The whole point is to tear down the system, but Leftists are effective enough that they become the system. Feminists won, but now Leftists want to tear down the feminists as well for the new thing. I honestly doubt either group will go to the Right wing, at least not in the sense that we think of it. Sure the feminists will be trying to conserve feminism while Leftists try to tear it down which in a way is inherently right wing, but you won't see 3rd wave feminists voting for Trump in 2024 either. There might be a small level of conversion to actual Conservatism caused by backlash from the Trans movement I imagine however. 

States rights are intrinsic to the US sytsem of governance. Federalism prevents regulation from taking freedom away because a plan passed in California won't affect Texas. This just allows policy to be more specified to a region, rather than using a one size fits all approach. Additionally states rights grant protection from the federal government, which at times can be over reaching. I belive that states rights does not hold up in the area of abortion because of the nature of the issue. The whole issue with abortion is determening if it is murder or not. If it is murder it should be regulated federally, and if it is not it should not be regulated, so states rights shoudn't really even be a consideration in terms of abortion policy.

The original clip honestly seemed like poor wording more than anything else, but you still don't talk that way (especially if you are a politician). That is just common sense.

I vote for 3RU7AL.

The scariest part about this is that Joe Biden has definitly heard the term used a few times. It is not just like he didn't know about it, he knew about it and then forgot about it. 

Hi, I am new here. I have a fair amount of experience with policy debate. For thoses unfamiliar with the format one side proposes a plan, and the other explains why that plan leads to nuclear war all while speaking around 350 words per minute. I love policy debate because it is extremely good practice for debating in general, and especially debating around political topics, but I also want to try and get better at debating around some more realistic circumstances which is why I am here.