The annual economics topic is upon us, but not to worry. We provide the debate version of a UBI: a monthly supplement of information, available to all, …
14 Responses
could you please do a march topic analysis a little earlier as I have a tournament in February on the march topic
We're getting some comments from folks (apparently) outside the competitive debate community, expressing strong opinions on UBI as a real-world proposal. Before you post, please read this:
This is a channel devoted to preparing high school students for debate competition. The opinions expressed are not necessarily what we sincerely believe. Our job is to lay out strategies for debating a very specific resolution, under very specific competitive rules. If we seem to be dismissive of your favorite argument, it's not necessarily because we think it's a bad idea in the real world. It may be because it doesn't fit well with the specific resolution or event rules.
In other words, we are here to teach students tactics to succeed in an extracurricular activity. We very rarely "promote" or "attack" any idea as unworthy of discussion in the real world. We have no desire to tell debaters what they should actually believe about policy or politics. Even if we did, these students are extremely smart and unlikely to be influenced by us.
TLDR: If you're not inclined to learn at least a little about the parameters of competitive debate, your comments are better directed to other media that don't operate in this specialized world. That said, we do appreciate sincere, respectful, good faith comments from those with real-world information. Bad faith or disruptive comments will be deleted and their authors blocked without hesitation.
How would the pro respond to the con saying all past UBI evidence from alaska or other countries is not dealing with a trade-off and should be disregarded in the round?
Yangs version of UBI IS NOT a replacement for ALL welfare systems. If you are going to attack Yang's proposals, you ought to ensure that you understand them first. But I guess that's not the point of this pseudo talk.
When you look at Andrew Yang’s case for UBI which is to negate the effects of automation replacing workers, do you think that is a good enough clause or is it too weak to support?
could you please do a march topic analysis a little earlier as I have a tournament in February on the march topic
Hey! When will the video for the new LD topic come out?
We're getting some comments from folks (apparently) outside the competitive debate community, expressing strong opinions on UBI as a real-world proposal. Before you post, please read this:
This is a channel devoted to preparing high school students for debate competition. The opinions expressed are not necessarily what we sincerely believe. Our job is to lay out strategies for debating a very specific resolution, under very specific competitive rules. If we seem to be dismissive of your favorite argument, it's not necessarily because we think it's a bad idea in the real world. It may be because it doesn't fit well with the specific resolution or event rules.
In other words, we are here to teach students tactics to succeed in an extracurricular activity. We very rarely "promote" or "attack" any idea as unworthy of discussion in the real world. We have no desire to tell debaters what they should actually believe about policy or politics. Even if we did, these students are extremely smart and unlikely to be influenced by us.
TLDR: If you're not inclined to learn at least a little about the parameters of competitive debate, your comments are better directed to other media that don't operate in this specialized world. That said, we do appreciate sincere, respectful, good faith comments from those with real-world information. Bad faith or disruptive comments will be deleted and their authors blocked without hesitation.
So what would you say are the exact taglines for Neg?
How would the pro respond to the con saying all past UBI evidence from alaska or other countries is not dealing with a trade-off and should be disregarded in the round?
Yangs version of UBI IS NOT a replacement for ALL welfare systems. If you are going to attack Yang's proposals, you ought to ensure that you understand them first. But I guess that's not the point of this pseudo talk.
Whoever wrote the description should get an award
The person who disliked is Andrew Yang
When you look at Andrew Yang’s case for UBI which is to negate the effects of automation replacing workers, do you think that is a good enough clause or is it too weak to support?
Would you recommend choosing neg over speaking second?
is there a way to remove the topic
What arguments would you advise to run on both pro and con and how would you run them?
Me: clicks video
Not even 5 seconds later: "This is the worst topic in pf and I've been in it for 8 years."
Me: PREACHHHHH
yanggang!