The stipulations are clear, the geographical bias and context is explicitly worded, so this is pretty much a straightforward motion. The goal of this motion is to have a discourse that aims to seek the best way to improve a country (of course, you don’t say). That being said, of course both Team Affirmative and…
*sigh* hate value-judgment debates using the word “regret” like this. Hate them. The reason why, is because there are multiple possible scenario and directions this kind of debates could unfold. The word regret is very ambiguous and opens numerous possible multi-interpretation. Hate it. For this motion, we will try to explore the two possible outcomes…
Alright, let’s start with.. the two aspects in this debate: the parties, and economic crisis. First aspect, both affirmative and negative teams are expected to have an agreement regarding the characteristics of populism-oriented parties, as the nature of those parties are absolute and are not actually debatable (not necessary, even). Second aspect, economic crisis should…
The wording of this motion, although explicitly states Spanish bullfighting, compels Team Affirmative to broaden the debate in its setup in order to cover other forms of animal cruelty as well. Whether or not it’s only limited to objectification of animals in sports, is optional, though. Or, another way round is Team Affirmative bringing up…
Of course, before we start, take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_credit_insurance in order to know and have a basic understanding of what this motion will be talking about. Now, biases first. Biases shouldn’t be too much of a problem in this debate. For one, all debates with no explicit wording regarding geographical context should be interpreted…