I do think that Pro should set up their case first, though. It makes more sense for the affirmative position to explain exactly what they are affirming before hearing the opposite side. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly about it, I do not mind going first.
If you are trying to argue that we need to spend more on the military, then specify that in your round one. The problem is that a "strong" military could mean a bunch of things. It could mean more hired personnel, more weapons contract etc. If you want to have a military funding debate though, then challenge me and I will take the side that we don't need more funding.
To be clear, I agree that polygamy ought to be allowed. However, I am supposed to be as tabula rasa (blank slate) as possible. Even if I do buy some of your philosophical points (which I do to an extent,) I needed more hard evidence regarding the viability of the system you talked about. No case is perfect, not mine or anyone's. I do think there is a case to be made for your side, but I cannot in good conscience vote for your side in this instance. I still think you are a great debater, and I do not want to tarnish my image in your eyes.
I like the cartoon. Common Core and No Child Left Behind both had the best of intentions when being created. I don't like its current implementation either.
It is typical that in normative resolutions, the BoP is split. Normative refers to a topic in ehich there is equal ground on each side (i.e the burden of con is to prove that legality of illegal immigrants is bad and vice versa for pro). Also, regardless of the legality of illegal immigration, to state that one side has the BoP is an unfair tactic. It creates a bigger burden for Con than it does for Pro with relatively little reasoning. What does it matter if they are legal or not? This is still a debate with equal ground for debate.
Illegal immigrants are by definition, already illegal. So the rationalization behind the BOP does not make sense. We aren't trying to classify more people as illegal, they already are. Also, the BOP is typically split unless it is a truism, or the resolution somehow specifies a BOP. The negation still needs to prove why it is bad to deport illegal immigrants. Just because a debate topic changes the status quo does not mean that the BOP falls to the side making said change. If anything, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be a massive change from the status quo.
I am just going to cut to the chase. Con offers a line-by-line refutation of literally every single part of Pro’s arguments with some faults and seemingly non-topical arguments.
For example, Con never really explains why the people taking the means of production equates to having no more private property. Moreover, he never really offers a case to prove why socialism is better.
However, Pro never responds so I am forced to buy that all of Con’s arguments are true. Ergo, Con wins purely by mitigation and refutation.
Conduct is also awarded to Con for the forfeiture of rounds.
Ignore the fact that the criticism is not underlines. I copied and pasted my rfd from Google Docs because apparently people could edit it.
Hello! If there is any question, feel free to PM me. I can’t promise to get to you immediately, but I will be as quick as possible if my rfd needs to be explained. Underlined text will be general comments, recommendations for debaters etc.
Pro forfeits round 1, failing to create a constructive case.
Con then uses this opportunity to define integral terms in the resolution.
Pro immediately contests the definition and attempts to clarify his stance.
I have 2 problems with this:
A. This should have been clarified in the 1st round. Imagine someone trying to change their advocacy in the middle of the debate. This is abusive as you could fend off any offense by simply “fixing” your original plan.
B. The fact that you have yet to offer any constructive arguments is problematic. Tell me why I should value your economic system over the capitalist system or I can’t vote for you.
Con then posts his case
He first focuses on the definition of socialism which pro contests by claiming that Pro’s definition actually does coincide with Con’s definition because there were technically 2 he used:
“a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
Part a, Con explains, coincides with pro’s definition of socialism.
You don’t really explain how the definition that Pro champions directly relates to your “part a” definition. I can infer what you mean, but try to draw a clearer link. Considering the lack of response from Pro, I am forced to buy this definition.
Con continues with his analysis, stating that if we were to exclude all examples of socialism involving a state government, we would have no successful cases of socialism.
You could have worded this a bit better, it took me a second to understand what you were saying.
I do think that Pro should set up their case first, though. It makes more sense for the affirmative position to explain exactly what they are affirming before hearing the opposite side. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly about it, I do not mind going first.
If you are trying to argue that we need to spend more on the military, then specify that in your round one. The problem is that a "strong" military could mean a bunch of things. It could mean more hired personnel, more weapons contract etc. If you want to have a military funding debate though, then challenge me and I will take the side that we don't need more funding.
By stronger military, do you mean increased spending?
I would love to debate you, but you need to be a little more specific.
Thanks for the votes.
I don't think Bernie is very social... He seems to be relatively introverted if you ask me.
Do you think you will be ready to post within the allowed time?
To be clear, I agree that polygamy ought to be allowed. However, I am supposed to be as tabula rasa (blank slate) as possible. Even if I do buy some of your philosophical points (which I do to an extent,) I needed more hard evidence regarding the viability of the system you talked about. No case is perfect, not mine or anyone's. I do think there is a case to be made for your side, but I cannot in good conscience vote for your side in this instance. I still think you are a great debater, and I do not want to tarnish my image in your eyes.
I like the cartoon. Common Core and No Child Left Behind both had the best of intentions when being created. I don't like its current implementation either.
I just looked at my schedule. I don't know if I have time yet, but I will try to accept.
Thanks RM, I try :-).
I'll consider it, but I have a debate going on right now. Maybe in a little bit I'll accept.
Are you for capitalism or socialism?
I suppose that I am simply asking for more clarity here.
It is typical that in normative resolutions, the BoP is split. Normative refers to a topic in ehich there is equal ground on each side (i.e the burden of con is to prove that legality of illegal immigrants is bad and vice versa for pro). Also, regardless of the legality of illegal immigration, to state that one side has the BoP is an unfair tactic. It creates a bigger burden for Con than it does for Pro with relatively little reasoning. What does it matter if they are legal or not? This is still a debate with equal ground for debate.
Good to see you back! I waited as long as I reasonably could to post.
No problem, and good luck to the both of you!
https://paa.confex.com/paa/2017/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper14090/missingwomen_paa.pdf
This is the link for his 5th piece of evidence. It will download as a pdf.
Sorry the case is gigantic. I tried to slim it down a bit.
Thank you, but I do not feel as confident here. We'll see.
I don't K. I am going to look at some practical concerns in the US. It will be interesting.
Illegal immigrants are by definition, already illegal. So the rationalization behind the BOP does not make sense. We aren't trying to classify more people as illegal, they already are. Also, the BOP is typically split unless it is a truism, or the resolution somehow specifies a BOP. The negation still needs to prove why it is bad to deport illegal immigrants. Just because a debate topic changes the status quo does not mean that the BOP falls to the side making said change. If anything, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would be a massive change from the status quo.
I am just going to cut to the chase. Con offers a line-by-line refutation of literally every single part of Pro’s arguments with some faults and seemingly non-topical arguments.
For example, Con never really explains why the people taking the means of production equates to having no more private property. Moreover, he never really offers a case to prove why socialism is better.
However, Pro never responds so I am forced to buy that all of Con’s arguments are true. Ergo, Con wins purely by mitigation and refutation.
Conduct is also awarded to Con for the forfeiture of rounds.
Ignore the fact that the criticism is not underlines. I copied and pasted my rfd from Google Docs because apparently people could edit it.
Hello! If there is any question, feel free to PM me. I can’t promise to get to you immediately, but I will be as quick as possible if my rfd needs to be explained. Underlined text will be general comments, recommendations for debaters etc.
Pro forfeits round 1, failing to create a constructive case.
Con then uses this opportunity to define integral terms in the resolution.
Pro immediately contests the definition and attempts to clarify his stance.
I have 2 problems with this:
A. This should have been clarified in the 1st round. Imagine someone trying to change their advocacy in the middle of the debate. This is abusive as you could fend off any offense by simply “fixing” your original plan.
B. The fact that you have yet to offer any constructive arguments is problematic. Tell me why I should value your economic system over the capitalist system or I can’t vote for you.
Con then posts his case
He first focuses on the definition of socialism which pro contests by claiming that Pro’s definition actually does coincide with Con’s definition because there were technically 2 he used:
“a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state”
Part a, Con explains, coincides with pro’s definition of socialism.
You don’t really explain how the definition that Pro champions directly relates to your “part a” definition. I can infer what you mean, but try to draw a clearer link. Considering the lack of response from Pro, I am forced to buy this definition.
Con continues with his analysis, stating that if we were to exclude all examples of socialism involving a state government, we would have no successful cases of socialism.
You could have worded this a bit better, it took me a second to understand what you were saying.