"Pro's definition(which is the only one) is a NOUN unsuitable due to them referring to different classes of subjects. Con's only entry that could be seen as "flawed" is an ADJ that in no way should be considered a commonplace definition due to it obviously not being capitalized. The 13th entry is more of an entry for "Right" than an entry for "right."
One Pro's source does not capitalize "right", so it really shouldn't matter. Even if the phrase is not grammatically correct this does not mean that it means something else. At the end of the day the resolution may be worded very poorly, but Pro's source still says that this is what it means.
I don't think this is a BoP issue. I agree the structure is inherently unfair, but you agreed to it when you accepted the debate. In a final round it is usually considered the judges responsibility to go back and cross-apply points from previous rounds to new points.
You do not bring up the specific entries within your speech, so I don't think I should vote there. More importantly, your point is that "No adj. entry was shown inherently conservative and no n. entry can meaningfully refer to people." This might be true within your own definition, but Pro has a definition that says right means political.
As a judge it is not my job to introduce my bias into the round and not vote on something just becuase I view it as a bad argument, so if an argument is dropped I will always weigh it in my decision.
I agree that this is probably not the best shell of all time. I am not sure if I need to include a role of the ballot, but this is usually more important on Ks than on theory, but maybe that is just my experience because I am use to debating in policy where theory is globally accepted. For standards and voters I learned to mix them, i.e. my standard is Structural Fairness and the voter is that the second speaker looses half of their rebuttal speeches.
Of course you can not just appoint any random child to any random position but this is also true for adults. These things should be decided based on skill rather than arbitrary limits. I agree with you Best.Korea's assertion is baffling.
If a child is ever in the position of running hydroelectric dam or nuclear plant he is probably capable of doing so, and plus he would still be forced to follow regulations just like anyone else. If a child can get a pilots license and their CDL they should absolutely be able to drive and fly. No one has the right to kill people, but again why should those under 18 not be allowed to responsibly keep and bear arms? There is no magical switch at 18 where someone becomes a person.
More specifically the resolustion is about the DSM. I think that both things you presented would be topical under the resolustion. I may take up these posistions, but I also think I will focus more generally on net benefit.
If it comes up we can probably define it contextually. But this is not in the resolustion, and probably should not be an issue. I think the key defenition for ODD is the defenition for ODD itself, and the defenition of be included within. If it does end up becoming relevant it might make more sense to use a defenition from the DSM, but we can handle that in round if it comes to it probably.
Also it might hurt discourse to define it, as what may be relevant later is not "what a mental illness is" in the status quo, but instead "what mental illness should be."
Impulse control can be relevant for some conduct disorders such as Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), which is characterised by rages of anger due to impulses. For ODD it is not relevant, nor is it even a diagnosis criteria. You are wrong that compulsion is the main sign of all conduct disorders (especially ODD). You can check this for yourself in the DSM if you do not belive me.
That is not what ODD is. ODD has nothing to do with a level of compulsion, and is not in the same range as OCD. Disorders such as OCD that deal with compulsion are classified as "Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders." While ODD is classified as a conduct disorder.
No, that seems relatively normal assuming she is a child. Children like to argue for the sake of it, and so do many adults. Someone would also meet criteria for ODD with much lighter symptoms than described here. Depeding on the nature of the outbursts she probably has DMDD if it is this severe, and not ODD.
I think this could be an interesting debate because popular opinion, common sense, and more general literature dictates that I am correct, however the medical literature obviously does not.
That might be fair, but this is just where different paradigms come in. The definition may very well hold if money is necessary, but in my view if you do not respond adequately in round I am going to award the point to the other side. Tech > Truth.
If you can show me where (after R2) you give a direct response to Pro's argument that: The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness, and where you explicitly address neg's theory that you should not debate around definitions, I will delete my vote.
Your definition is obviously right, and pro's is obviously wrong. The problem isn't the merit of your definition, it is that you never answer the arguments put forth in R3 by pro (however wrong they may be in reality).
Everything flows through on Pro after R3, including his definition.
For clarification here is the flow as I see it interms of the defention:
You give a defenition in R1,
In R2 pro says "The copout response is to just say "no, there is financial freedom, there is a such thing based on this or these particular definitions". We're not arguing definitions. It's about what's logical, what makes sense, hence the truth.
What is the truth? Unless you've found a way to actually be free from money or finances, you're not FREE from it. Having a large amount of money means more freedom but not free from it. Like a prisoner that has a bigger cell with more knick knacks is a person with a bigger house and all like that. "
In R2 you say: "Financial freedom is about using the money one has in a way that is as free as one can be in said economy. This is why the debate's title says 'general financial freedom' and not 'absolute' :)"
Up to this point you are winning on the definition.
Then in R3 Pro says: "No this is not the reason. The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness. Those that have constructed cabins, hunt for food and survived forest environmental elements. But the general person you meet will be indebted and obligated financially as in not being free of it or from it.
You've stated things that support the debate title. These things are just being stated differently not under realization. Perhaps due to this topic never being thought of before holistically. The facts are what they are about the monetary system. You and others just may view and express them in varying fashions."
In R3 you say: "Money is necessary."
This does not respond to Pros analysis (albeit clearly B.S. analysis) of the resolution saying that it is not absolute. This is where you drop the entire case. Tech > Truth. Pro wins.
Thanks for voting, and I appreciate the feedback.
"Pro's definition(which is the only one) is a NOUN unsuitable due to them referring to different classes of subjects. Con's only entry that could be seen as "flawed" is an ADJ that in no way should be considered a commonplace definition due to it obviously not being capitalized. The 13th entry is more of an entry for "Right" than an entry for "right."
One Pro's source does not capitalize "right", so it really shouldn't matter. Even if the phrase is not grammatically correct this does not mean that it means something else. At the end of the day the resolution may be worded very poorly, but Pro's source still says that this is what it means.
I don't think this is a BoP issue. I agree the structure is inherently unfair, but you agreed to it when you accepted the debate. In a final round it is usually considered the judges responsibility to go back and cross-apply points from previous rounds to new points.
You do not bring up the specific entries within your speech, so I don't think I should vote there. More importantly, your point is that "No adj. entry was shown inherently conservative and no n. entry can meaningfully refer to people." This might be true within your own definition, but Pro has a definition that says right means political.
As a judge it is not my job to introduce my bias into the round and not vote on something just becuase I view it as a bad argument, so if an argument is dropped I will always weigh it in my decision.
I agree that this is probably not the best shell of all time. I am not sure if I need to include a role of the ballot, but this is usually more important on Ks than on theory, but maybe that is just my experience because I am use to debating in policy where theory is globally accepted. For standards and voters I learned to mix them, i.e. my standard is Structural Fairness and the voter is that the second speaker looses half of their rebuttal speeches.
Of course you can not just appoint any random child to any random position but this is also true for adults. These things should be decided based on skill rather than arbitrary limits. I agree with you Best.Korea's assertion is baffling.
If a child is ever in the position of running hydroelectric dam or nuclear plant he is probably capable of doing so, and plus he would still be forced to follow regulations just like anyone else. If a child can get a pilots license and their CDL they should absolutely be able to drive and fly. No one has the right to kill people, but again why should those under 18 not be allowed to responsibly keep and bear arms? There is no magical switch at 18 where someone becomes a person.
thanks, no worries.
More specifically the resolustion is about the DSM. I think that both things you presented would be topical under the resolustion. I may take up these posistions, but I also think I will focus more generally on net benefit.
If it comes up we can probably define it contextually. But this is not in the resolustion, and probably should not be an issue. I think the key defenition for ODD is the defenition for ODD itself, and the defenition of be included within. If it does end up becoming relevant it might make more sense to use a defenition from the DSM, but we can handle that in round if it comes to it probably.
Also it might hurt discourse to define it, as what may be relevant later is not "what a mental illness is" in the status quo, but instead "what mental illness should be."
Yeah, for sure. I will get to work on writing my first speech. Good luck!
Impulse control can be relevant for some conduct disorders such as Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED), which is characterised by rages of anger due to impulses. For ODD it is not relevant, nor is it even a diagnosis criteria. You are wrong that compulsion is the main sign of all conduct disorders (especially ODD). You can check this for yourself in the DSM if you do not belive me.
That is not what ODD is. ODD has nothing to do with a level of compulsion, and is not in the same range as OCD. Disorders such as OCD that deal with compulsion are classified as "Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders." While ODD is classified as a conduct disorder.
No, that seems relatively normal assuming she is a child. Children like to argue for the sake of it, and so do many adults. Someone would also meet criteria for ODD with much lighter symptoms than described here. Depeding on the nature of the outbursts she probably has DMDD if it is this severe, and not ODD.
I think this could be an interesting debate because popular opinion, common sense, and more general literature dictates that I am correct, however the medical literature obviously does not.
That might be fair, but this is just where different paradigms come in. The definition may very well hold if money is necessary, but in my view if you do not respond adequately in round I am going to award the point to the other side. Tech > Truth.
If you can show me where (after R2) you give a direct response to Pro's argument that: The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness, and where you explicitly address neg's theory that you should not debate around definitions, I will delete my vote.
Your definition is obviously right, and pro's is obviously wrong. The problem isn't the merit of your definition, it is that you never answer the arguments put forth in R3 by pro (however wrong they may be in reality).
Everything flows through on Pro after R3, including his definition.
For clarification here is the flow as I see it interms of the defention:
You give a defenition in R1,
In R2 pro says "The copout response is to just say "no, there is financial freedom, there is a such thing based on this or these particular definitions". We're not arguing definitions. It's about what's logical, what makes sense, hence the truth.
What is the truth? Unless you've found a way to actually be free from money or finances, you're not FREE from it. Having a large amount of money means more freedom but not free from it. Like a prisoner that has a bigger cell with more knick knacks is a person with a bigger house and all like that. "
In R2 you say: "Financial freedom is about using the money one has in a way that is as free as one can be in said economy. This is why the debate's title says 'general financial freedom' and not 'absolute' :)"
Up to this point you are winning on the definition.
Then in R3 Pro says: "No this is not the reason. The reason why it states "general" is because we know of the exceptions of those taken to the wilderness. Those that have constructed cabins, hunt for food and survived forest environmental elements. But the general person you meet will be indebted and obligated financially as in not being free of it or from it.
You've stated things that support the debate title. These things are just being stated differently not under realization. Perhaps due to this topic never being thought of before holistically. The facts are what they are about the monetary system. You and others just may view and express them in varying fashions."
In R3 you say: "Money is necessary."
This does not respond to Pros analysis (albeit clearly B.S. analysis) of the resolution saying that it is not absolute. This is where you drop the entire case. Tech > Truth. Pro wins.
I feel like atheisim is by definition the belief no god exists where as agnosticism is a lack of beleif.
Yeah, sorry I accepted the debate in the early hours of the morning not realising the time constraint until I had already accepted.