We had a heated discussion in club about my position that debaters should not practice arguing things they do not believe–ever. But what if you face your own case and you really believe in it? I maintained that without disagreeing with the idea (i.e. pro-abortion), you could still argue against the case (topicality, theory, counterplan, solvency) and maybe even fulfill the same goal better. More, I maintained that you could do this without research. Long and short of this dispute: I would debate Peter and Lydia who ran a case they believed in (and I really like), making only logic arguments (no evd) and arguments they could say against that case and still agree with.

Understanding the purpose of the round, you are invited to watch. I may or may not have been a little too snooty. But then, we got to wear jeans… 😉

Special thanks to Peter and Lydia who are dedicated enough to the hundreds of people that read this blog that they allow this and the entirety of their 1AC to be posted online. = more growth and challenge for them. In order to make the point, we are only going to post constructives.

1AC

CX

1NC

2AC

CX

%d bloggers like this: