Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
Resolution: The benefits of post-9/11 security outweigh the harms to personal freedom.
The guy on my team didn't write a speech
We got the side neither of us wanted (pro)
The opponents got the side that they wanted
Somehow I REKT THEM (my partner just kinda mumbled what I said in the first constructive speech/didn't say much in the crossfires)
All of the judges voted for my team
It was gr8
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
we got pro. We wanted con
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
|
gg
whenever that happens in my school my team ends up losing and then blames it on me for no reason |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
dang what format do you use
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
|
what was your argument?
Five more minutes mom, I'm talking to my toxic internet friends about whose music tastes are superior. |
|
|
i forgot
i would say it but the flashbacks are coming back D: |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
@star Maybe Lincoln Douglas? Public Forum? Policy Debate? Oxford?
@vito Check the resolution up top. We got pro
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
|
i meant what were the points you made in your speech
Five more minutes mom, I'm talking to my toxic internet friends about whose music tastes are superior. |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
Oh
Well basically my contentions were that the personal freedom lost was only a minor inconvenience and well-worth the safety gained, and that security put in place has significantly increased safety.
My framework was cost-benefit, and I urged the judges to cast a pro ballot if we demonstrated greater benefits to safety than costs to personal freedom.
I was worried about not having three contentions, but my second contention was packed with evidence, and the definition of personal freedom we used was specific/didn't relate to security very well, so that basically trashed their framework, and thus, their contentions.
I knew they were going to bring up that the Homeland Security Red Teams yielded 95% failure rates, so I found some evidence that nullified the tests by pointing out bias. I also countered it by stating that (according to the US State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism in 2015), the fatality rates of terror attacks decreased by 14%, and the number of attacks decreased 13% in the previous year alone.
I thought that was powerful because those tests were likely their strongest evidence
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
My partner did improvise the final focus relatively well though.
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
|
w0w, you did a pretty good job considering the difficulty of the topic
Five more minutes mom, I'm talking to my toxic internet friends about whose music tastes are superior. |
|
Loyal2OneJoin Date: 2012-06-24
Post Count: 10155 |
thanks mate
we thought we were gonna crash
I'll never get board of chess puns! |
|
|
I think I'd do ok with pro, but thats cause I AMZ EVILZ :3
NYUK NYUK! x3 |
|
rex2856Join Date: 2009-03-16
Post Count: 3145 |
whoever lost with the cons is really bad lmao |
|
|
^we're all relatively new to it, honestly |
|