Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Okay

About InItToWinIt

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/19/2001

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    Perry High School
  1. Thanks Cedric, I'll definitely check those out. Yeah I'm talking about FW more geared for LD. Could you see if they'll help me out?
  2. Hey, would any of you fellow debaters happen to have general framework cards? For values and/or criterion? Thanks
  3. What if someone mentions Ben Carson's plan to cut budget funding?
  4. True. May just stick with Fed programs. Maybe I'll check out the vouchers and see the effectiveness. Also, what's your actor for your Aff case? I was thinking of running USFG enforces a law/rule while states individually implement action plans.
  5. But Reps dominate Congress etc again, right? I get what you're saying...could another plan text be passing the Affordable Housing Act?
  6. But don't vouchers have a shit ton of problems?
  7. Any ideas for housing solvency? I know federal/permanent housing solutions are alright. But, I've heard subsidized housing is good too. Thoughts/ideas? My topic is: The US ought to guarantee the right to housing. Thank you!
  8. Aye, I'm willing to trade briefs, cases etc (unless you're so kind as to freely gift me with card(s)). My topic is: The US ought to guarantee the right to housing. Preferable if you can give me a SV card that's based off of this or is neutral. Thank you! P.S. Housing discrimination cards are also welcome (in general; no specified oppression)
  9. Current topic: The U.S. ought to guarantee the right to housing. I would like to trade briefs for a housing DA or if you have any topic suggestions for Negation then comment below. Thank you.
  10. Hey everyone, I was wondering if anyone had contention ideas for the negation side of the current LD topic: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I'm currently running hate speech as my main argument(s), but I was wondering if there were better ideas out there? Thank you!
  11. InItToWinIt

    LD Jan/Feb

    Hello! I have a few ideas and can help answer your question, I would recommend reading up on Kant ethics before pursuing that route. Kant contradicts himself at points, but used effectively and wisely, can be good. My value for Aff is Democracy and my criterion is along the lines of constitutionalism. As the other two have said, go with constitutionality or something of the sort, but make sure to have a good defense for it (like, make sure you can explain why we must follow the Constitution or why it's good). As for Neg, my value is Deontological ethics and my criterion is Government legitimacy. Deontology deals with Kant, so as I said read up on him if you choose that route. Other good Neg values are discourse (importance of discourse), structural violence, and justice. A great criterion for Neg would also be the purpose of education. Fighting words are NOT constitutionally protected, so there is no need to bring them up. This really depends on whether or not you think hate speech is constitutionally protected. For Aff and Neg, I would say yes. If you insist that hate speech isn't protected for Neg, then why are you arguing it? Same goes for Aff. To defend hate speech for Aff (if it comes up, which is highly likely), then state that violent and harmful hate speech is not protected (liability, fighting words, etc). That means you're defending hate speech that doesn't incite violence and is protected. Another route of defense is by stating that freedom of speech helps minorities (more than hurts). Minorities can choose to respond to hate speech and in instances have used freedom of speech to create change (MLJK, Susan B. Anthony, etc) You can also use the "marketplace of ideas" strategy, which basically states that all speech must be allowed since it helps generate ideas and can help stop bad ones (racism etc). I would research "marketplace of ideas" as a defense Hope this helps. Good luck!
  • Create New...