HomeCould an AC, theoretically, pick a nation (i.e. the US), and then explain disadvantages/advantages of rejecting conscription in that scenario? Would NFL judges me open to that type of interpretation debate?
3 posters
Nation specific?
Db8rBoi- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 108
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-02-07
JohnnyFontane- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 107
Reputation : -1
Join date : 2009-02-05
a. I think that most of the judges at this tournament will expect a straight-up interpretation of the topic
b. The topic clearly is not applied to a specific nation. If the writers really wanted a topic about US military policy, I am sure they would have stuck "United States" in there like they do on a lot of other topics.
For both reasons I think that your interpretation is not strategic at NFLs.
b. The topic clearly is not applied to a specific nation. If the writers really wanted a topic about US military policy, I am sure they would have stuck "United States" in there like they do on a lot of other topics.
For both reasons I think that your interpretation is not strategic at NFLs.
Volk23- Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-07-20
My experience that anyone who limited the debate ended up having a rough time defending their case. HOWEVER,
I hit Cherry Creek's Stephen Lurie in Round 9 (he was undefeated in those out rounds for a long time....) and, as the Neg, he limited the draft to only a democracy. I lost on a 2-1 split. I personally disagree with doing something like that because it's a conditional stance, but it worked out for him.
I hit Cherry Creek's Stephen Lurie in Round 9 (he was undefeated in those out rounds for a long time....) and, as the Neg, he limited the draft to only a democracy. I lost on a 2-1 split. I personally disagree with doing something like that because it's a conditional stance, but it worked out for him.
Similar topics
|
|
|