Hi all!
I just had my first (8th grade) cross ex debate, I got fourth, with my pard. Go us. The topic was the dumbest one ever. BIRT the Queen should remain Canada's Chief of State. BULLSHIT RELOLUTIONS. We had to argue both sides, and my pard has a thing for speechification. BTW: I'm american. Debating Canadian Politics. Coming 4th of 18+ teams. GO ME GO ME.
Anyhow, in order to tryout for the newman debates, we had to write some shits on The Kyoto Protocol. Mind proofreading? Ty.
Here goes:
Resolution: BIRT Canada should implement the Kyoto protocol
Case line: The Kyoto Protocol is an ineffective solution that will lead to a monstrous misallocation of resources
Arguments:
1. it is not even proven that global warming exists. Why waste precious tax dollars on ?solutions? that may in fact prove USELESS.
2. The Kyoto protocol will cost money. This money could be better spent on medicare, education and welfare.
3. The Kyoto protocol is taking an ineffective middle ground. Even if(emphasise if) global warming DOES exist, and IF we can get the money from other places without harming them immensely, the Kyoto protocol will still be ineffective. Some studies have shown that, even IF we implement the protocol today, and IF every other nation listed ratifies it IMEDIATELY we will get a mere four years in
the year 3000. What this means is that if we ratified, the conditions in the year 3000 would be the same as 2996 if we didn?t. Worth it? I think not. If we do not ratify, and save our hard earned, valuable dollars for research in effective methods to prevent or minimize global warming that actually can DO something, we end up better off. We don?t suffer a huge blow to the economy now, we don?t waste our money that could be put towards better things, like researching a cure for cancer, or AIDS, we end up better off as a whole. Middle grounds are almost always ineffective. Look at the Pontiac aztek. A middle ground between SUV and sedan, and what do you get? A good comprimise? Nope. You get the ugliest piece of elephant dung ever to defile the roads. Don?t waste your tax dollars. Put them into something that can help.
Thanks alot. This is just 1 of 3 points
My First Debate/proofread kyoto thing
Moderator: Edi
-
Headshots_Sold_Here
- Redshirt
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 2002-07-10 01:03am
-
IRG CommandoJoe
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3481
- Joined: 2002-07-09 12:51pm
1 and 2 need to look more like 3. But I'm guessing you needed to put three things down, so you sorta extracted two other things from 3, the real argument, just to say you have three things. 
Anyways, you make good points in 3. But it is recommended (whether it is required or not for the debate) to list the sources of where you got your information. For all I know, you could have pulled all of that out of thin air without credible sources. I'm not saying you did (and agree with you all the way), but you get my point, right?
Anyways, you make good points in 3. But it is recommended (whether it is required or not for the debate) to list the sources of where you got your information. For all I know, you could have pulled all of that out of thin air without credible sources. I'm not saying you did (and agree with you all the way), but you get my point, right?
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? -Obi-Wan Kenobi
"In the unlikely event that someone comes here, hates everything we stand for, and then donates a big chunk of money anyway, I will thank him for his stupidity." -Darth Wong, Lord of the Sith
Proud member of the Brotherhood of the Monkey.
"In the unlikely event that someone comes here, hates everything we stand for, and then donates a big chunk of money anyway, I will thank him for his stupidity." -Darth Wong, Lord of the Sith
Proud member of the Brotherhood of the Monkey.
-
Headshots_Sold_Here
- Redshirt
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 2002-07-10 01:03am
Thanks So far
The point here was to list your case line, and 3 main arguments. Then flesh out one of them. Sorry if I didn;t make that clear.
Thanks for your help, all
edit: just editing so it doesn't look like post count boosting. In reality, I'm bored waiting for something to d/l.
CROSS EXAMINATION STYLE DEBATE
Thanks for your help, all
edit: just editing so it doesn't look like post count boosting. In reality, I'm bored waiting for something to d/l.
CROSS EXAMINATION STYLE DEBATE
Last edited by Headshots_Sold_Here on 2002-10-09 12:21am, edited 1 time in total.
Try putting point one and two after point three, the other two are some what political and inflamitory and could poison the listeners before you get to your main point. And is it LD or Congress style debate, I'm a little rusty on the RRoPP and LD styles.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
-
Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Look into the CO2 output of Volcanos. That has killed many a Pro Kyoto arguments.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
I used to do team debate which I think is the same format as what you are doing so here is what I think.
1. Valid argument but you'll need a lot of evidence to prove to the average person that it does not exist.
2. You must prove that the amount of money spent on Kyoto will provide a larger benefit elsewhere. You kind of cover this in point 3.
3. There are a couple of points you list. It looks like the main point is that the possible benefits are negligble. Try to move any unrelated information to this point elsewhere. The benefits of the money spent elsewhere should fall under point 2. The thing about the Aztek is an opinion. It should be taken out. Even if you have evidence that the compromise in the Aztek's case is bad it doesn't mean the same thing is true for the other compromise. I think there is a fallacy for this but I don't recall the name.
1. Valid argument but you'll need a lot of evidence to prove to the average person that it does not exist.
2. You must prove that the amount of money spent on Kyoto will provide a larger benefit elsewhere. You kind of cover this in point 3.
3. There are a couple of points you list. It looks like the main point is that the possible benefits are negligble. Try to move any unrelated information to this point elsewhere. The benefits of the money spent elsewhere should fall under point 2. The thing about the Aztek is an opinion. It should be taken out. Even if you have evidence that the compromise in the Aztek's case is bad it doesn't mean the same thing is true for the other compromise. I think there is a fallacy for this but I don't recall the name.
Member of the BotM. @( !.! )@