StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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

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?

try splitting up pt. 3 into several smaller points.

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

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.

Look into the CO2 output of Volcanos. That has killed many a Pro Kyoto arguments.

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.