Jump to content

Things we won't miss from this topic

Recommended Posts

That sounds more like the team read T against your friend and not FW

No it was definitely FW. I'll try and find the shell and you can see for yourself. 


EDIT: It's not letting me upload files, odd. 


Tags were: 


====Resolved means to enact by law====

Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition



====The United States federal government refers to the actual government====

Black's Law Dictionary 90

6^^th^^ Ed., p. 695




====Should implies obligation to action====

Merriam-Webster 2

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2002, 10^^th^^ Edition, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should




====Without critical thinking skills developed through clash and competition we can't effectively act on content-specific knowledge, this voids the purpose of their aff and advocacy

English et al 7====

Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief & Carly Woods, all former debate coaches, "Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction" http://www.pitt.edu/~~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf



====Switch-side debating on the topic is uniquely important.  It allows debaters to become better advocates and increases critical thinking. They shouldn't run a K as aff. Just learn both sides. If I were forced to debate why murder is good, I would understand even more why it is bad.====

Dybvig and Iverson 99

Kristin Chisholm Dybvig, and Joel O. Iverson, Can Cutting Cards Carve into Our Personal Lives: An Analysis of Debate Research on Personal Advocacy, http://www.uvm.edu/~~debate/dybvigiverson1000.html




====Definition may be arbitrary, BUT without Limits debate becomes impossible—T is a jurisdictional voting issue====

Shively 2k—Professor of Political Science, Texas A & M

Ruth, Political Theory and Partisan Politics, p. 181-2



====Limits are key – their interpretation would allow *limitless* contexts for advocacy that only tangentially relate to the topic. The breadth of political theory magnifies the importance of limits on discourse. We still need definitions. Just because perfection is impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it.====

Lutz 2k (Donald S. Professor of Polisci at Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 39-40)JFS

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Create New...