Jump to content

PantherPryde

Member
  • Content Count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Okay

About PantherPryde

  • Rank
    Varsity
  • Birthday 12/21/1998

Profile Information

  • Name
    Tiffany Adcock
  • School
    Van Horn High School
  • Biography
    I'm the type that's unpredictable and logically random. I have a tendency to be very odd at times, but I love making friends. Also, I'm loud. Very loud. By the way, I also tend to be a smartass, so there's that.
  • Location
    Independence, MO
  1. Overanalyze the shit out of the most minute of details. Foolproof.
  2. It means lawful and fairly ruled governments. Weird, I know. Guess that rules out the US? Haha
  3. It would be good, but not totally necessary in some cases. It would make you more credible though, depending on how you use it and what side you're on. Statistics are actually a great idea in that respect, too.
  4. I find negative is easier to build a case on. It excludes those who can't find a job, so arguing utilitarianism as a value and quality of life as a value criterion could be effective if you play your cards right. You could argue that there are many government programs (i.e.. Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) that already exist, so we should focus on strengthening and improving those instead. Also, you could bring up that it could have a ripple effect on the economy, as raising wages have the potential to cause an economic backlash. Affirmation, on the other hand, is a bit more tricky. However, I have found evidence on how this system is already being implemented by local governments here in the US, and that it benefits both employers and employees alike. You could therefore probably argue that this being on the local level is a good start, but that it would be even better if this was federally implemented. You'd have to find more evidence though, but it's just a thought. Utilitarianism and quality of life also works here, again, if you play it right. It might be a bit easier to use in affirmative, so that's a perk.
  5. Yeah, but I still can't wait to see how people are gonna put their spin on it
  6. No. Just no. Please don't. I'll hit you with a newspaper if I have to.
  7. The domestic security sounds very interesting, though I would suspect that it could likely become a bit repetitive. Most negs would most likely be something along the lines of terrorism, national security, and crime, while there's obviously going to be a lot of aff cases having to do with invasion of privacy and violation of constitutional rights.
  8. This is by far my favorite post on this site.
  9. I'm eager to debate on the "Right to be Forgotten". I think there are good arguments on both sides, so it should be interesting.
  10. Has anyone tried using any arguments in their cases about this topic involving xenotransplantation as an alternative to organ procurement, particularly Negative? How would you argue against it on Affirmative? I'm thinking about using it as an argument for one of my contentions on my Negative case. Would it be good to use, or is it a terrible idea?
  11. In case anyone needs some help finding things to use for the September-October Lincoln-Douglas debate topic for 2014, I have made a file containing links to sources that could be helpful for your cases on both Affirmative and Negative. Anyone with this link can access the file on my Google Drive, so feel free to check them out! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i43DBv51MZeO04Xo63wRLxtf1pEr_Z9lU7W4IbA_fik/edit?usp=sharing
×
×
  • Create New...