Any given person should do debate (details below)
The details of the resolution:
Any given person will be restricted to an average American teenager who has the time to do debate.
That means I'm not saying a person with way too many responsibilities is exempt from this, and we will not bring other countries into this debate.
My argument is that debate is beneficial overall and therefore the average American teenager should do it.
· 61% increase in critical thinking skills
· 25% improvements in literacy rates
· 95-99% college matriculation rates among at risk students
· Over 150 colleges and universities actively recruit urban debaters for admission and scholarships
· Urban debaters in most cities have high school graduation rates above 90% (national avg. 72%)
A school system with roughly 10,000 teachers and a turnover rate of 20% would save approximately $500,000/year by reducing turnover by 1 percentage point. Debate increases teacher retention as they watch students develop critical thinking skills before their eyes. They reconnect to the mission that first attracted them to education.
Colleges & Parents Benefit:
Only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges. When urban debate leagues informs parents that debaters receive millions in scholarships just for debating, they see new options for their children. More than 150 colleges offer debate scholarships. Universities use urban debaters to diversify their entering classes with promising students from neighborhoods they cannot access normally.
School Districts Benefit:
Creating positive culture is a key component of building district-wide norms of academic excellence. Reaching just 5% of students with the UDL model has driven schools to add AP courses, upgrade their libraries, and expand their educational objectives for all students. Debate works. It’s why debate was required in every school district for decades.
High school graduates live longer, have better general health and are less likely than high school dropouts to use publicly financed health insurance programs. If the 18-year-olds who failed to graduate had advanced one grade, it would save nearly $2.3 billion in publicly financed medical care, aggregated over a lifetime.
The Nation Benefits:
1.2 million students fail to graduate on time costing the nation more than $312 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity over their lifetimes. For every city where debate flourishes, their earning potential increases exponentially, saving billions. (1)
2. People with severe mental disabilities should not debate.
3. Honestly, I should not debate, because I am wasting your time. So I introduce to you a paradox. You have an option. Debate me, and have me waste your time to prove that debate is not for everyone, or call it off and acknowledge that you were wrong. Either way, you will never know if I am being sincere.
Let's begin with point by point refutation.
1. "Debate stems hate"
I have three responses to this point.
a. My opponent has not brought up evidence to support this point. For him to claim that debate stems hate, he must have some kind of warrant. You can not merely make claims without a person who has studied the subject backing you up.
b. How does violence come out in debate? Debate is intellectual and is formed through vocal words or letters (in the case of debate.org), not physical. There is no reason to believe that violent people should not debate.
c. Lastly, the majority of average american kids are not violent in such a way that this could even remotely be a problem. My opponent has provided no warrant for a claim that is not even logically based.
2. "People with severe mental disabilities should not debate".
I have three responses to this as well.
a. Why is that so? You need to provide a reason to believe so.
b. This point is not logical. In fact, if someone has mental disabilities, debate would actually be beneficial, because it builds up that person's brain. Again, no reason to believe a pereson with mental disabilities should not debate.
c. No evidence, again. If my opponent will refuse to provide any reason to believe his position, he should at least provide backup evidence.
d. The majority of average american kids do not have serious mental disabilities. So this point does not apply to the majority of the population. Why does that matter? Because we argue by net benefits, or which contention provides more benefit. If you're talking about people, you have to look at what the majority is. If the majority will receive a benefit from debating, then vote for me. Clearly, my opponent has provided no reason to vote against me since his arguments are not clear, not backed up, and illogical.
This point is rather confusing. How is this an argument against my position? What do you mean by the fact that I will never know if you are sincere? I'll go through every sentence here.
"Honestly, I shouldn't debate, because I am wasting your time."
On the contrary, you are building up my skills. You have not attacked the benefits of debate which I stated in my first "speech", so that means by debating me you are giving me the benefits of debate.
"Debate me, and have me waste your time to prove that debate is not for everyone, or call it off and acknowledge that you were wrong."
I would like to rephrase that. Because I am not wrong. You again have provided no evidence and illogical arguments which do not properly refute my stance. Therefore I am right, and you are wrong.
"Prove that debate is not for everyone"-- Restate that. Attempt to prove. You can not prove a falsehood, and you haven't. Until you do, that statement is foolish.
Voters, I urge you to vote for me. My opponent has provided illogical arguments that are not backed up with evidence. They also only apply to the minority. That means that the majority of average american kids will get a benefit from debate.
Thank you, and I anticipate my opponent's response.
As for the framework of this debate, it has been unfairly established that "any given person will be restricted to an average American teenager who has the time to do debate." This is abusive of the pro team, and does not argue a logical argument. Any teenager who has the time to debate? As a last resort, the pro side could default to say that the only way a teenager could have time would be if they had no other activities, in which case debate is better than doing nothing. This is an unfair stance, and the framework needs to be resolved to "any given person" meaning ANY GIVEN PERSON, not just teenagers. Further, the pro team does not specify whether this means competitive debate - as in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Policy, etc. - or recreational debate - i.e. www.debate.org. Since it is not specified by the resolution, it must be assumed that any form of debate should be taken into consideration. If the pro team wanted to frame the debate around High School competitive debate, they should have written the resolution that way. All of the evidence is framed toward competitive debate, so it does not in any way refute my points.
How so? I just responded to my opponent's points with several responses. I did not copy and paste. Yet again, my opponent is providing a illogical statement.
1. Resolution too specific
I am the Instigator. I can choose the topic. My opponent is trying to say that just because I used my right to choose the topic he should win. How is this logical? Furthermore, he accepted this debate. If he can find no argument against my position, that is his fault, not mine. Therefore he shouldn't go around whining that my resolution is too specific. The reason I used this resolution rather than "Any given person" is because I wouldn't expect a bum in India, for example, to take up debate.
2. "Definition of time"
This is in no way an unfair stance. If you as the con can prove that debate is actually going to be detrimental, then you win this debate. Of course, as of now, you still have not proved that. Again, my opponent is whining about a debate that he himself accepted. If he finds he cannot debate me, he should then concede rather than try to get votes by launching illogical "unfairness" arguments.
3. No specification between competitive and recreational
I assumed my opponent would have the common sense to realize I mean every kind of debate, including debate.org. But, yet again, I have been disappointed. I did not mean to frame it towards competitive debate only. I would also like to point out debate.org is also competitive. I am debating my opponent, for example, and that is competition.
4. "His evidence does not refute my points"
First off, any benefits towards students applies even with debate.org. Let's go through the benefits my evidence cited.
Critical thinking: I am thinking critically of my opponent's arguments. I think critically of any opponent of mine whenever I am debating on this site. So this still applies.
Literacy: On debate.org you write more than you do in competitive debate. I would argue you get even more literacy skills.
Admission to college: If you are a good debater on debate.org, you get the benefits and you are more likely to be admitted to college than someone who has never debated.
The rest apply.
Yes, admission to college and scholarships are not quite AS high with debate.org rather than competitive debate, but they still are a benefit.
Also, any of the benefits quoted in the first speech that are based on the kid learning faster apply. For example, if you are on debate.org and you actually debate (unlike the way my opponent has been doing by providing illogical arguments), then you get the thinking skills and it's easier for you to do any subject and therefore graduate.
Now that I've refuted my opponent's last post, let's go over my responses to his first post. In the last post, my opponent made no attempt to refute my responses, most likely because he can not. The only thing he said about them was in the last sentence:
" All of the evidence is framed toward competitive debate, so it does not in any way refute my points. "
I will be going over my points and 1. Showing how all except two did not even depend on the benefits of debate evidence, and 2. The ones that did use the benefits that still stand even without competitive debate.
b. Sort of... Basically said that debate will build up their brain. But again, I went over my evidence and showed how it still applies to even debate.org. So this response still stands.
a. Yes, I did use the benefits of debate. But I used the student benefits of debate, which all still apply to debate.org
As you can see, ALL of my responses still stand. And as I've responded to his last post, he has no points on me. I have yet to see my opponent actually debate me and respond to my arguments.
Please vote pro because my opponent still has provided no well thought-out or logical arguments against my position and therefore I still stand.
As for the resolution, you did not specify in the actual resolution who/what is being referred to. It does not matter if you wrote the resolution, you can't discount the vast majority of the world: ANY GIVEN PERSON. Stop cheating by writing nonspecific resolutions, the writing off your opponents as whiners when you try to limit the scope of a pre-written resolution.
Let me get this straight. You want to say any given person should do debate, yet we should exclude:
1. anyone who is not a teenager
2. not an American
The framework itself shows that the pro side feels cornered, and the only way to win is to twist the resolution out of context entirely
At this point, I am getting tired of the Pro side's poor conduct, stating disappointment, and whining. So let's clear this up. The pro side lied about copy/paste. The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round.
Finally, relating to my original case, my opponent is clearly mentally retarded, and should clearly not debate, because he cannot do it fairly.
a. It's not an argument. It's a statement that has no weigh in on the round.
b. So what? Why does it matter? If anything it's good to give context. I don't understand why my opponent is so irked by the fact that I copied a source.
"As for the resolution, you did not specify in the actual resolution who/what is being referred to. It does not matter if you wrote the resolution, you can't discount the vast majority of the world: ANY GIVEN PERSON. Stop cheating by writing nonspecific resolutions, the writing off your opponents as whiners when you try to limit the scope of a pre-written resolution."
Oh, so now you're saying I did not specify in the resolution. Ugh. I tried to avoid this silly argument by adding (Details below) to the resolution. But my opponent, in his desperation to find ANYTHING against me, has brought up the argument. Therefore I rebut:
I specified that the any given person would be restricted to the average american kid. I also stated specifically that was basically the condition of the resolution. I didn't want to write a huge resolution: "Any given person who is an american kid that has enough time should do debate." So I just wrote (details below) and specified it. I was being specific.
"Let me get this straight. You want to say any given person should do debate, yet we should exclude:
1. anyone who is not a teenager
2. not an American
The framework itself shows that the pro side feels cornered, and the only way to win is to twist the resolution out of context entirely"
a. Yes, I do want to exclude those two things. Plus exclude anyone without enough time. Again, I am the instigator. I make the standards. If the contender can't debate with the standards, he/she should not accept the debate. It is my opponent's fault that he can't debate this properly.
b. "Cornered"? It just means I think it unwise, again, for a bum in India to take up debate. It's hard to debate against facts. And I did not twist the resolution. The conditions I wrote were PART OF THE RESOLUTION.
"At this point, I am getting tired of the Pro side's poor conduct, stating disappointment, and whining. So let's clear this up. The pro side lied about copy/paste. The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round."
Poor conduct? I am merely stating facts. You were whining because you couldn't beat my arguments. Plain and simple.
Lying about copy and paste: This was completely a misunderstanding. Let's look at the way you phrased it the first time.
"I'm sorry, I did not know that we would be debating this round by copying and pasting all of our main points without any actual participation on our part."
What this makes me think is that we've all been copying and pasting for the last few rounds. Not just the first speech. If he had said this during the first round, I would have understood his meaning. But he stated it long after I had copied a source.
Now, let's look at what I said in response to the silly point.
"How so? I just responded to my opponent's points with several responses. I did not copy and paste. Yet again, my opponent is providing a illogical statement."
Do you see anywhere in there that I'm denying I copied and pasted the benefits of debate from a source in the FIRST speech? No, I merely denied that I copied and pasted the second round's speech. Which is obviously truth. Nowhere did I lie.
Lastly, who cares if I copied from a source? That's what evidence is for, right? My point was that debate is beneficial. I needed a source stating the benefits of debate. So I copied that source. Nothing wrong. My opponent is flustered at me for backing up my point with evidence. How queer.
"The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round"
How did I change the focus of debate? If you're referring to the fact that I limited the resolution in my FIRST speech, then just stop. I specifically said "Details below", which is translated as "I'm going to show you what I mean by this resolution".
As you can see, I haven't cheated. On the other hand, my opponent has not responded to any of my arguments yet. Therefore they still flow to me.
"Finally, relating to my original case, my opponent is clearly mentally retarded, and should clearly not debate, because he cannot do it fairly."
And now he resorts to ad hominem. If I'm clearly refuting each of his arguments and he's not responding and I'm mentally retarded, what does that make him? I'm actually laughing right now. "Mentally retarded". Wow, better let it go or I'll die of laughter.
What do we see from this? My opponent has just called me a liar, cheater, and a retard. If that is not misconduct, I do not know what is. Have I called him a retard, liar, or cheater? No. Yet he says I have misconduct for saying he was whining. Sigh.
Voting issues are basically issues in this round that I believe flow to me and therefore justify voting for me.
Voting issue 1. Net benefits
Basically, my opponent brought up a couple of arguments in round 1 which were actually getting close to real arguments. But I showed how they do not apply or just don't make sense. Also, he has not contested the benefits of debate. The closest he got to contesting them was that debate.org does not provide these benefits. But I went through them and showed how it does indeed. So clearly my position has the net benefit, and my opponent has not provided a reason why it doesn't. The fact that he completely dropped his arguments shows that he either (1) concedes with me or (2) did not know what to say because I adequately responded to them.
Because of this issue alone, I ask that you would vote Pro.
Voting issue 2. Misconduct
My opponent called me a liar, cheater, and retard. The closest I got to calling him names was that he was whining and I pointed it out. We are supposed to debate with respect for each other, not calling each other names with not much reason. I also distinctly pointed out that I am indeed NOT a liar, I did not cheat, and there's no reason to believe I'm a mental retard. (If I was a mental retard, why does that matter anyways)?
Because of my opponent's severe misconduct, I would ask that you vote Pro.
Alas, Con has one last chance to throw ad hominems and complain about my resolution (which he accepted by choosing me to debate). Please do not be blinded by his random insults.
Also, if he brings up new points, I would ask that you mark him down even more for misconduct. I can not respond to whatever he says in the next speech, so if he makes new arguments it is unfair for me.
Thank you for voting on this debate round, and please vote Pro.
Honestly we both had better things to do than debate to no end. At least I do, and I hope you do. If you don't, it must mean that not only are you a lying, cheating retard, but you also have no life. Only kidding, of course, but, but if that is true, maybe debate is good for you, but it is not good for everyone.
In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "I'm really hungry!"
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|